INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. U niversity M icrofilm s International A B ell & H owell Inform ation C o m p a n y 3 0 0 N orth Z e e b R o a d . Ann Arbor. Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1 3 4 6 U SA 3 1 3 /7 6 1 - 4 7 0 0 8 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0 Order N um ber 9208738 P ublic and com m unity service activities o f faculty and academic staff m em bers at a land-grant institution: A stu d y o f M ichigan S ta te U niversity Arthur, Carolyn Lee, Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1991 Copyright ©1991 by Arthur, Carolyn Lee. All rights reserved. UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES OF FACULTY AND ACADEMIC STAFF MEMBERS AT A LAND-GRANT INSTITUTION: A STUDY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Carolyn Lee Arthur A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1991 ABSTRACT PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES OF FACULTY AND ACADEMIC STAFF MEMBERS AT A LAND-GRANT INSTITUTION: A STUDY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Carolyn Lee Arthur The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of the public service component of the institutional mission of Michigan State University, a land-grant institution. It employed descriptive, relational, analytical and definitional questions to accomplish that purpose. A survey instrument was administered to 3,531 subjects in October, 1988. There were 1,980 useable returns, for a 56% return rate. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X) was used to analyze data. Simple statistics and correlation coefficients were computed and analyses of variance were used to determine relationships between means. Major findings included the following: 1) Extent of involvement scores in both professional public and community service and servicerelated activities with students were lower than perception of importance scores. 2) Perception of importance scores in both sections were stable regardless of independent variable. Carolyn Lee Arthur 3) Faculty and academic staff members' extent of involvement in professional public and community service activities revealed a pattern of stronger relationship with their own perception of its importance than with any university practices which could have had an effect on such involvement. 4) College/unit affiliation was by far the strongest predictor of the four independent variables. 5) Respondents whose longevity at MSU was 11-15 years scored consistently higher than any of the other longevity categories on almost every scale. As a result of these findings, the following conclusions were drawn: 1) There was a shared university-wide value present regarding the perceived importance of public and community service which transcended all four independent variables. 2) Opportunities offered (or taken) to enact those values varied considerably, especially when considered college/unit by college/unit. 3) Involvement in public and community service could be increased by capitalizing on the university-wide shared value of the importance of service. 4) There must be other factors at work besides university practices which motivated involvement in Carolyn Lee Arthur professional public and community service and servicerelated activities with students. 5) Respondents whose longevity at MSU was 11-15 years would be most likely to cooperate in efforts to strengthen the service component of the institutional mission. Copyright by Carolyn Lee Arthur 1991 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the loving memory of my father, Donald Maurice Arthur, who instilled in me a love for reading and learning; to my mother, Dorothy Myers Arthur, whose loving care and sense of humor nursed me back to wholeness when I ruined my health in pursuit of this degree; and to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Master Teacher, who was the first to recognize that, " . . . the greatest among you shall be your servant" (Matthew 23:11). vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As with any project of this magnitude, the end result could not have been accomplished without the help of a number of people, who should be thanked. First and foremost, I owe a real debt of gratitude to my doctoral committee. Dr. Louis C. Stamatakos, who has served as Chair, taught me from the very beginning of my program that, as student affairs practitioners, we owe nothing less that our best efforts to the profession. Dr. Marylee Davis has served a dual role, both as a member of my doctoral committee and as the supervisor of my graduate assistantship in the Office of the President. It was through her involvement as chair of the MSU Campus Compact/Public and Community Service Committee that this research came about in the first place. She also very generously supported this project through a Career Development Model Grant. Dr. Casmer Heilman has also served in a dual role, as a member of the Campus Compact/Public and Community Service Committee and as a member of my doctoral committee. To him I am indebted for his patience and guidance during the development of the questionnaire that vii viii served as the basis for this study. Dr. James F. Rainey, Associate Dean of the College of Business, served as the faculty representative of my cognate area on the committee. He provided a number of valuable insights. There were several other people vitally involved in the initial development of the questionnaire, to whom I owe thanks for their insight and knowledge of the functioning of Michigan State University. These include Thomas P. Emling, then Director of Adult Services for MSU; Mary Edens, Coordinator of the Service Learning Center; Dr. James Bristor, Professor of Park and Recreation Resources; and Dr. Martha L. Hesse, Assistant Director in the Office of Planning and Budgets. The actual logistics of administering a survey to the entire faculty of a university as large as Michigan State could not have been accomplished alone either. I am indebted to Jean Kropp and Angela Horstman, of the Office of Academic Personnel Records, for providing accurate and up-to-date labels for each mailing; to David Marquette of University Printing, for seeing that the survey was printed and delivered on time in spite of the difficulties created by a strike of the ClericalTechnical Union; to Betty Kletke and her crew of student workers in the Kellogg Center mailroom, who patiently stuffed over 3,500 envelopes for the initial mailing; to Dr. Lee Olson of the Computer Center, who wrote the ix program for machine scoring the answer sheets; and to Dr. Patterson A. Terry, Assistant Director of the Social Science Research Bureau, who did all the statistical work and helped with interpretation of the final results. In a project like this one there are those people who lend "moral support" as well as practical help. Included in this number would be John Davis, Laurie Starns and Stacey Gartee, student workers in the Office of the President, who shared an office with me and listened to my on-going anxieties in the early stages of this research. The majority of the writing took place after my move to Summit Christian College, where my secretary, Natalie Ropp, and staff lent encouragement along the way. And, finally, my mother deserves thanks for continuing to tell me, "I know you can do it," at the times I was least convinced of that fact. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of T a b l e s ................................... CHAPTER I: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction................................. Purpose of the Study......................... Need for the Study........................... M e t h o d o l o g y................................. Assumptions and Limitations of the Study. . . Definition of T e r m s ......................... Organization of the S t u d y ................... CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction................................. A Brief History of Public Service .......... Definitions of Public Service .............. Major Works on Public S e r v i c e .......... Books................................... Major Studies....................... .. . Dissertations........................... Dissertations From M S U ................. The Role of Public Service in Faculty Workload Expectations ........ Educational Mission..................... Workload Expectations................... C o n s u l t i n g ............................. Evaluation of and Reward for Service........ Evaluation of Service................... Reward for Service Activities.......... Summary ............................. History of S e r v i c e ..................... Definitions............................. Major Works on Public Service.......... Service in Workload Expectations . . . . Evaluation and Reward................... x xiii 1 4 8 13 16 17 19 21 23 32 41 42 47 50 53 55 56 59 63 67 68 72 78 78 79 81 82 83 xi CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY Introduction................................. Instrumentation ............................. Population and Sample ....................... Data Collection Procedures................... Procedure for Data A n a l y s i s ................. S u m m a r y ..................................... CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Introduction................................. Distribution of Respondents ................. Results of Descriptive Questions............ Question #1............................. Overall Scales..................... Individual Items and Subscales. . . Auxiliary Questions .............. Question #2............................. Overall Scales..................... Individual Items and Subscales. . . Question #3............................. Overall Scales..................... Individual Items................... Question #4............................. Overall Scales..................... Individual Items................... Auxiliary Questions .............. Question #5............................. Overall Scales..................... Individual Items................... Results of Relationship Questions .......... Question #6............................. Comparison of M e a n s .............. Correlations....................... Question #7............................. Comparison of M e a n s .............. Correlations....................... Question #8............................. Comparison of M e a n s .............. Correlations....................... Question #9............................. Comparison of M e a n s .............. Correlations....................... Question # 1 0 ........................... Institutional Practices and Extent of Involvement .......... Institutional Practices and Perception of Importance........ Results of Analytical Questions ............ Question # 1 1 ........................... Question # 1 2 ........................... Results of Definitional Question............ 85 88 92 93 96 98 99 101 104 105 105 108 110 Ill 112 114 116 117 119 120 120 122 123 125 125 127 128 129 130 132 134 135 135 138 138 141 143 143 145 147 148 150 152 153 157 160 xii CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Introduction.............................. 165 S u m m a r y .................................. 165 Purpose.............................. 165 Structure............................ 166 Methodology.......................... 169 Assumptions About and Limitations of the Data 170 Major Findings and Conclusions............ 174 Major Findings From Descriptive Questions.......................... 174 Conclusions From Descriptive Questions . 178 Major Findings From Relationship Questions.......................... 179 Conclusions From Relationship Questions. 182 Major Findings From Analytical Questions 183 Conclusions From Analytical Questions. . 184 Major Findings From Definitional Q u e s t i o n .......................... 185 Conclusions From Definitional Question . 186 Implications of the S t u d y ................ 187 Recommendations for Further Research..... 189 Reflections.............................. 191 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................... 194 APPENDIX B: ADVANCE LETTER, SEPTEMBER 12, 1988. . 200 APPENDIX C: COVER LETTER, OCTOBER 10, 1988. . . . 201 APPENDIX D: SAMPLE RETURN POSTAL CARD ......... 202 APPENDIX E: FOLLOW-UP LETTER, OCTOBER 24, 1988. . 203 APPENDIX F: RESULTS FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE COMPUTATIONS.................... APPENDIX G: APPENDIX H: APPENDIX I: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: COMPARISON OF MEANS AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS. REPRESENTATIVE LISTING OF SERVICE ACTIVITIES...................... SUMMARY OF UNSOLICITED COMMENTS ABOUT UNIVERSITY PRACTICES REGARDING PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SERVICE. . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY................................... 204 218 219 224 228 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: Distribution of Respondents by Full-Time/ Part-time Status, Appointment Type and Academic R a n k .............................................. 102 TABLE 2: Distribution of Respondents by College/ Unit A ffiliation................................. 103 TABLE 3: Overall Means on Extent of Involvement Scale for Professional Public and Community Service by Independent Variable ................. 106 TABLE 4: Individual Item and Subscale Means on Extent of Involvement Scale for Professional Public and Community Service by Independent V a r i a b l e ......................................... 109 TABLE 5: Overall Means on Perception of Importance Scale for Professional Public and Community Service by Independent Variable........ 113 TABLE 6: Individual Item and Subscale Means on Perception of Importance Scale for Professional Public and Community Service by Independent V a r i a b l e ......................................... 115 TABLE 7: Overall Means on Extent of Involvement Scale for Service-Related Activities With Students by Independent Variable ......................... 118 TABLE 8: Individual Item Means on Extent of Involvement Scale for Service-Related Activities With Students by Independent Variable............ 119 TABLE 9: Overall Means on Perception of Importance Scale for Service-Related Activities With Students by Independent Variable............ 121 TABLE 10: Individual Item Means on Perception of Importance Scale for Service-Related Activities With Students by Independent Variable............ 123 xiii xiv TABLE 11: Overall Means on Institutional Practices Scale by Independent Variable.......... 126 TABLE 12: Individual Item Means on Institutional Practices Scale by Independent Variable.......... 128 TABLE 13: Comparison of Means for Professional Public and Community Service by Independent V a r i a b l e .......................................... 131 TABLE 14: Correlation Coefficients for Individual Items and Subscales Drawn From Comparison of Extent of Involvement and Perception of Importance Scales for Professional Public and Community Service............................................ 133 TABLE 15: Comparison of Means for Service-Related Activities With Students by Independent Variable . 136 TABLE 16: Correlation Coefficients for Individual Items Drawn From Comparison of Extent of Involvement and Perception of Importance Scales for Service-Related Activities With Students . . . 137 TABLE 17: Comparison of Means on Extent of Involvement Scales by Independent Variable . . . . 139 TABLE 18: Correlation Coefficients for Individual Items and Subscales Drawn From Comparison of Extent of Involvement Scales ..................... 142 TABLE 19: Comparison of Means on Perception of Importance Scales by Independent Variable........ 144 TABLE 20: Correlation Coefficients for Individual Items and Subscales Drawn From Comparison of Perception of Importance Scales................... 146 TABLE 21: Correlation Coefficients for Individual Items and Subscales Drawn From Comparison of Institutional Practices Scale and Extent of Involvement Scale in Professional Public and Community Service................................. 149 TABLE 22: Correlation Coefficients for Individual Items and Subscales Drawn From Comparison of Institutional Practices Scale and Perception of Importance Scale in Professional Public and Community Service................................. 151 XV TABLE 23: Comparison of Means on Individual Items, Subscales and Overall Scales in Professional Public and Community Service and Service-Related Activities With Students byAppointment Type . . . 155 TABLE 24: Summary of Results From Open-Ended Question Regarding Recent Involvement in Public and Community Service............................. 161 TABLE 25: Results From Analysis of Variance For Descriptive Questions............................. 204 TABLE 26: Summary of Findings: Comparison of Means and Correlation Coefficients .............. 218 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction The concept of service has been recognized as an integral part of the mission of American higher educational institutions since colonial times. In the early years of American history, colleges were seen to "serve society through the lives of dedicated graduates" (Rudolph, 1962, p. 59). A college education was intended for those who would serve the church and state and was restricted to young people who "were eligible for the college experience by reason of birth or social station" (Martin, 1977b, p. 5). It was not until the latter half of the nineteenth century, however, that the expectation of service to society was applied to the institutions themselves as well as to their graduates. Daniel Coit Gilman, president of Johns Hopkins, argued that the services which the university rendered to society were "'the acquisition, conservation, refinement and distribution of knowledge'" (Rudolph, 1962, p. 272). 1 As the German model 2 pioneered at Johns Hopkins was adopted at more and more institutions, curricula began to change and universities began to emerge (Rudolph, 1962, p. 272). The latter half of the nineteenth century also brought a "growing awareness that a new age required new training and new preparation" (Rudolph, 1962, p. 248). The lack of a curriculum that would serve the needs of the majority of the American people, at that time agrarian, became apparent (Kuhn, 1955, p. 8). the In 1855, Legislature of the State of Michigan became to establish an agricultural thefirst college (Eddy, 1957, p. 16). The Michigan Agricultural College consequently became one of the first to benefit from the passage of the Morrill Act Of 1862. Signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln, the Morrill Act set aside public lands for sale, stipulating that: the interest of which shall be inviolably appropriated by each State . . . to the endowment, support and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be . . . to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts (The Morrill Act, 1862, in Crane, 1963, p. 192). One of the primary reasons for the creation of "land-grant" colleges, as they became known, was to establish a place in which "the search for new knowledge in neglected fields of fundamental importance to the American people (and the application of this knowledge in practice) would have an honored place" (Eddy, 1957, p. x). The application of new knowledge became the basis for the "'land-grant idea' of higher education in the service of all people" (Eddy, 1957, p. xi). Michigan Agricultural College was one of the first to create and disseminate new knowledge through agricultural extension, helping farmers to improve the practical performance of their work (Kuhn, 1955, pp. 203204). As Michigan Agricultural College evolved over the years into Michigan State University, this original service function broadened to include the dissemination and application of new knowledge in a variety of disciplines to "the citizens of the State of Michigan, the nation, and the world" (MSU Mission Statement, 1982, p. 1). while land-grant institutions became uniquely identified with service, other colleges and universities did not abandon the service ethic. In the early twentieth century, the service of the university was expanded to include service to the emerging new professions, . . . service to the advancement of new knowledge, and service to students willing to become initiates in the rite of passage into any profession . . . (Martin, 1977b, p. 5). The services provided by colleges and universities to the larger society have continued to expand since the early 4 decades of this century, both in number and range and in the variety of people being served (Martin, 1977b, p. 5). While the recipients of service from universities have continued to change, the concept of service has remained an integral part of the mission of American higher education institutions in contemporary times, especially at land-grant universities. In recent years, the expectation of service by students to society has been revived. A coalition of college and university presidents, known as Campus Compact, was formed in 1985, "to devise ways to encourage more community involvement by students" (Greene, 1988, p. A31). This organization expanded rapidly and several state affiliates were founded, the first in California in late 1988 (Greene, 1988, p. A31). A coalition of presidents from public universities, independent colleges and community colleges in Michigan officially announced the formation of the Michigan Compact at a press conference in March, 1989 (Gibson, 1989, p. 3). Michigan State University was one of the five founding member institutions of the Michigan Compact (Gibson, 1989, p. 14). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of the public service component of the institutional mission of Michigan State University, a land-grant institution. This study of MSU faculty and academic staff members' public and community service activities employed descriptive, relational, analytical and definitional questions to achieve that purpose. First, this study was designed to describe the extent of involvement of Michigan State University faculty and academic staff members in public and community service activities, both personally and with and/or for students. Faculty perceptions of the importance of such involvement as professional activities for themselves and as learning opportunities for their students were to be described as well. Secondly, this study was designed to identify relationships between described behaviors and perceptions which may have an effect on the achievement of the service component of MSU's institutional mission. Thirdly, the study was designed to analyze those relationships in order to: (a) develop recommendations which may be useable for enhancing achievement of institutional and faculty service goals and (b) aid in the generation of hypotheses which then could be tested in further research. Finally, the study was designed to develop an operational definition of service for Michigan State University, by examining the responses to an open-ended 6 question regarding recent service activities. The descriptive component of the purpose was to be achieved by seeking answers to the following research questions: 1. To what extent are MSU faculty and academic staff members involved in public and community service? 2. To what extent do MSU faculty and academic staff members consider public and community service important as professional activities? 3. To what extent are MSU faculty and academic staff members involved with students in service-related activities? In other words, if faculty and academic staff members consider public and community service involvement important for themselves, does that consideration translate into involvement with and support for students in service-related activities? 4. To what extent do faculty and academic staff members consider service-related activities to be important as learning opportunities for students? 5. Are there institutional practices which may have an effect upon faculty and academic staff members' participation in public and community service? In order to achieve the relational component of the purpose, a number of comparisons were to be drawn, including the following: 6. What relationship exists between faculty and academic staff members' extent of involvement in public and community service and their perception of the importance of such services as professional activities for themselves? 7. What relationship exists between faculty and academic staff members' extent of involvement with students in service-related activities and their perception of the importance of such activities as learning opportunities for students? 8. What relationship exists between extent of involvement of faculty and academic staff members in public and community service activities and the extent of their involvement with and/or for students in service- related activities? 9. What relationship exists between faculty and academic staff members' perception of the importance of professional public and community service activities and their perception of the importance of service-related activities with and/or for students? 10. What relationship exists between institutional practices and extent of faculty and academic staff members' involvement in professional public and community service activities and their perception of its importance as a professional activity? The analytical component of the purpose was to be achieved by answering the following research questions: 8 11. Are there any additional relationships which emerge from analysis of findings of this study? 12. What patterns, if any, can be identified which may prove useful in developing recommendations to enhance achievement of service goals or in generating hypotheses for testing in further research? Finally, the definitional component of the purpose was to be achieved by examining responses to the openended question which solicited specific examples of recent public and community service involvement. Need for the Study There were three primary reasons why the present study was undertaken: l. Paucity of research regarding public service. While public service has generally been accepted as part of the tripartite mission of American higher education, there has been "little research on service and hence no developing body of knowledge on the service mission of higher education" (Crosson, 1983, p. 112). The investigator was able to locate only two primary sources which dealt exclusively with public service in American higher education. The first was a 1983 ASHE- ERIC publication entitled, Public Service in Higher Education:__ Practices and Priorities. "categorize[d] public service . . . This volume by external recipient: service to the community, service to state and local governments, [and] service to business and industry" (Crosson, 1983, p. 3). The other primary source was a volume of the New Directions in Higher Education series, published by Jossey-Bass in 1977, entitled Redefining Service. Research and Teaching. The chapters included in this book explored the concept of service through "ideas of value" (Martin, 1977b, p. 7). In addition to the two sources listed above, the investigator was able to locate three case studies which were conducted in recent years on public service activities of university faculty members and their attitudes toward such activities. The first was a rather comprehensive study of faculty involvement in community service at the several campuses of the University of Minnesota (Kanun, 1975). The second was a study conducted on the University of California campuses which addressed the role of faculty in public service and motivations and rewards needed to promote such involvement (Dowling, 1986). The third study used faculty members from five state universities in Ohio as subjects (Johnson, 1984). A small number of recent doctoral dissertations on public service were also located by the investigator, several of which were conducted at Michigan State University. In addition, while numerous journal articles 10 were found which discussed public service, most only gave it passing mention as part of the tripartite mission of American higher education. If public service has indeed been accepted as an integral part of the mission of American higher education, then it deserves to be as well researched, understood and valued in the literature as the other two components, research and teaching. As one author noted, Faculty members in American colleges and universities sit on the three-legged stool of teaching, research, and service. But they rest uneasily there because the legs of their stool are uneven. Teaching and research tend to balance out. Service, however, is short— poorly conceptualized and erratically expressed (Martin, 1977a, p. vii). Another reason public service should have more recognition in the literature is because it would document the contribution higher education institutions and their faculty and staff members have made to the larger society, beyond the more easily recognized methods of teaching and research. Public service, the practical application of knowledge in the public interest, is that aspect of the mission of an institution "that will address the current problems and concerns of the people, the nation, and the world" (Dressel, 1987, p. 420). Public service serves a need in higher education which should be reported in the literature as well. "Through public service, faculty validate past research 11 findings and identify the need for new research and for modifications in the curricula" (MSU Mission Statement, p. 3). 2. Need to clarify the concept and definition of public service. There was considerable disagreement, both in the general literature and in Michigan State University documents, about what exactly constituted 0 public service. The investigator found no less than a dozen different definitions of public service in the relevant literature, some of which contained common elements, but several of which were radically different. For example, the Thesaurus of ERIC Descriptors described public service as extension or voluntary service with government, community or charitable organizations, including activity of educational institutions and personnel, made available to the public outside the context of regular instruction and research programs (Houston, 1987, p. 193). On the other hand, Smith defined public service as ...a programmatic relationship between university and community through which knowledge is brought to bear upon the resolution of public problems" (Smith, 1982, p. 695-A). Evidence of confusion regarding the definition of public service existed in Michigan State University documents as well. A recent memorandum comparing definitions of public service in university documents 12 found that there was a "lack of consistency" from one university document to another (MSU Office of Planning and Budgets, 1988, p. 1). The current mission statement of the university did not define public service at all, but only mentioned it in passing as an avenue for validation of past research efforts and a method for identification of the need for new research (MSU Mission Statement, p . 3). There was also a lack of consistency in university documents about whether consulting activities, for which a faculty member received personal payment, should count as public service in the evaluation process (MSU Office of Planning and Budgets, 1988, p. 3). 3. Lack of concrete, comprehensive^information regarding public and community service activities of faculty and academic staff members at Michigan State University. While some colleges or units within the university may have had information regarding the public service activities of their faculty members, no office or individual at the University could be identified which or who had concrete, comprehensive information on the subject. For this reason, the investigator believed that a systematic collection and analysis of such information would make a worthwhile contribution to the knowledge base of the university. It was expected that the instrumentation, 13 methodology and results of this study would make a relevant contribution to the literature, as well as prompt further study at land-grant institutions of similar size and complexity as Michigan State University. Methodology The impetus for this study came from some of the responsibilities assigned to the investigator as a graduate assistant in the Office of the President at Michigan State University during the 1987-88 academic year. Following discussions with appropriate university personnel regarding possible content and format for the research instrument, a first draft was created by the investigator. After a number of subsequent refinements and drafts, the content and final format of the instrument were decided by the investigator. The questionnaire was divided into five sections, as follows: (I) background (demographic) information; (II) professional public and community service activities; (III) service-related activities as learning opportunities for students; (IV) institutional practices which affect participation in public and community service activities; and (V) specific examples of public and community service activities (see Appendix A). Section I was designed to provide demographic information about the respondents which was needed to 14 analyze results in subsequent sections. Included were longevity of appointment at MSU, part-time or full-time status, type of appointment, academic rank and college/unit affiliation. Section II addressed extent of faculty involvement in public and community service activities and their perception of the importance of such service as professional activities. Section III addressed the extent of faculty involvement with students in service-related activities and their perception of the importance of such activities as learning opportunities for students. Section IV dealt with faculty members' perception of institutional practices which may affect their involvement in public and community service activities. Section V allowed for open-ended responses. section was included for several reasons: This (1) to validate the respondents' perception of what constitutes public and community service; and (2) to provide specific examples of faculty and academic staff members' public and community service involvement. Because of the accessibility of the research population to the investigator and a desire for the broadest possible representation in the results of this research, the entire population was used instead of a sample. 15 The MSU Office of Academic Personnel Records was contacted and subsequently supplied the investigator with labels for the entire population of 3,531 as of September 10, 1988. Of that number, 2,461 were faculty and 1,070 were academic staff. An advance letter was sent to each subject one month before the planned mailing of the questionnaire itself. This letter informed recipients of the purpose of the survey and solicited their participation (see Appendix B). The questionnaire, with cover letter, return envelope and return postal card was subsequently sent to each member of the population in early October, 1988 (see Appendices C and D). A follow-up letter was sent two weeks later to all subjects who had not yet returned the postal card, which indicated that they had completed and returned the questionnaire (see Appendix E). The questionnaire was printed so that it could be machine scored. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X) was used to analyze the results. Descriptive statistics were generated for each of the first four sections. Computation of correlation coefficients and analyses of variance were employed to determine the relationships among and between results in Sections II, III, and IV. 16 Assumptions and Limitations of the Study This study was limited to those persons who held an academic appointment at Michigan State University during Fall Quarter, 1988, the time at which the research instrument was administered. A print-out from the MSU Office of Academic Personnel Records revealed 69% of this group to be tenured faculty, in the tenure stream, or holding a continuing academic staff appointment (MSU Office of Academic Personnel Records, 1988). Consequently, it was assumed that this population was relatively stable. Previous studies have shown that the variables of age and gender of respondents were not significant factors (Kanun, 1975, p. 9; Johnson, 1984, p. 42; Dowling, 1986, p. 12). Thus it was assumed that such information was unimportant for the purposes of this study as well. It should be recognized that those who chose to respond to a questionnaire regarding public and community service may already have been predisposed as strongly in favor of the concept or, conversely, strongly opposed to it. The results from this research may consequently have been skewed somewhat rather than truly representative of the activities and perceptions of the population (Borg and Gall, 1983, p. 434). Interpretation of results from this research should be considered in light of this fact. 17 While the population under study was confined to Michigan State University, its findings may be generalizable to other land-grant institutions of similar size and complexity, as found in the membership of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC). Definition of Terms Although marked differences in the definitions of service were found in the relevant literature, the following definitions were used for purposes of this study: 1) College or university service: committee or other governance activities internal to the department, college, school or campus related to program development and institutional policy; 2) Professional service: committee, editorial, or other work for national or regional professional associations and/or academic disciplines; 3) Public service: activities other than basic research and teaching involving direct relationships with groups external to the academic community (Crosson, 1983, p. 5). For the purposes of this study, these definitions by Crosson have been taken together and only the public service label has been used to denote all three categories. In addition, the following relevant definitions are offered: 18 Community service— The voluntary performance of civic duties (or as the Carnegie Commission called them, "citizen tasks,") by faculty and academic staff as individual members of the community, which may or may not involve use of their professional expertise. Research— "The investigation which is usually theoretically oriented and which has for its purpose the production of new knowledge" (AECT, 1977, p. 192). Teaching— "The process of helping learners acquire knowledge, skills and appreciations by means of systematic instruction" (Knowles, 1977, p. 536a). Faculty— All "regular faculty" and "temporary faculty," both full-time and part-time, as defined in the MSU Faculty Handbook: The 'regular faculty' of Michigan State University shall consist of all persons appointed under the rules of tenure and holding the rank of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, or instructor, and persons appointed as librarians. In addition, the principal administrative officer of each major education and research unit of the University shall be a member of the 'regular faculty.' The 'temporary faculty' of Michigan State University shall consist of all persons holding the rank of professor, associate professor, assistant professor or instructor, but not appointed under the rules of tenure (MSU Faculty Handbook, February, 1988, edition, p. 10). Academic Staff— All continuing or temporary academic employees of Michigan State University who are not 19 regular or temporary faculty, i.e. specialists, research associates, lecturers, and assistant instructors (MSU Faculty Handbook, October, 1986, edition, p. 25). All persons with adjunct and clinical appointments are also included in this category (MSU Faculty Handbook, October, 1986, edition, p. 27). Consulting— The process by which a faculty member takes his/her expertise and shares it with an individual or group outside the university, for which that faculty member receives personal payment. Recommendation— An idea, choice or course of action presented as appropriate, desirable or worthy of acceptance. Hypothesis— "A guiding idea, tentative explanation or statement of probabilities, serving to initiate and guide observation and the search for relevant data and other considerations and to predict certain results or consequences" (Good, 1959, pp. 276-277). Organization of the Study This dissertation has four additional chapters, organized in the following manner: Chapter II contains a review of the relevant literature, including a brief history of the land-grant movement and its influence on the public service component of American higher education. An examination 20 of public service definitions and descriptions in the literature follows, including a review of consulting as a public service function. Major works on public service are then reviewed, and the role public service plays in faculty workload is included as well. The chapter concludes with a review of how public service activities are evaluated and rewarded in contemporary American colleges and universities. Chapter III outlines the design and methodology used in the study. It contains a description of the survey instrument, the population, and procedures used in data collection and analysis. Chapter IV includes a presentation and analysis of the findings of the study, in both text and tabular form. The chapter begins with a description of the distribution of respondents, includes results from each of the twelve research questions and concludes with an analysis of the results from the open-ended, definitional question. Chapter V presents a summary of the major findings and conclusions which can be drawn from the results of the study. Implications of the findings and recommendations for further study complete the chapter. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction Service has long been considered an important part of the mission of twentieth century American higher education, although a "distant third after teaching and research" (Crosson, 1983, p. 1). Because discussion about college and university public service "is inextricably linked to fundamental questions about the nature and purpose of higher education," there is a considerable amount of references to service in the literature (Crosson, 1983, p. 1, 111). A problem arises, however, because there is both too much and too little literature on public service in higher education— too much because the treatment of the service mission is contained throughout the literature on higher education . . . and too little because very few books and articles treat the subject of public service in any depth (Crosson, 1983, p. 111-112). The investigator found Crosson's analysis of the situation to be only too true. While there were quite a few references in the literature to service as a uniquely American contribution to higher education, "there is 21 22 little research and theory on service and hence no developing body of knowledge on the service mission of higher education" (Crosson, 1983, p. 112). All of the research on public service located by the investigator had been done during the last twenty years. In addition, there was little unanimity found in the literature regarding what constitutes public service, nor was there much written about its relative importance as a professional activity for faculty members. Little was found by the investigator regarding how public service activities should be evaluated and how they should be rewarded in the tenure and promotion structure of contemporary universities. This chapter is divided into several sections which reflect the diversity of references to public service found in the literature. 1) Those sections are as follows: A brief history of public service, particularly in land-grant institutions; 2) How public service is defined, both in the general literature and in Michigan State University documents; 3) An overview of major works in the literature which are devoted solely to public service, including a review of recent research; 4) The role of public service in faculty workload expectations, including a discussion of outside 23 consulting and, finally, 5) How public service is evaluated and rewarded in tenure and promotion proceedings. A Brief History of Public Service The concept of service has been a part of American higher education since the founding of the early colonial colleges. At that time, the colleges were seen to "serve society through the lives of dedicated graduates" (Rudolph, 1962, p. 59). In colonial times a college education was reserved for those who were going to pursue "a very select and limited group of professions that were closely allied with church and state" (Martin, 1977b, p. 5). This meant that the colonial colleges provided a service to "the young people who were deemed eligible for training . . . and/or were eligible for the college experience by reason of birth or station" (Martin, 1977b, p. 5). During the latter half of the nineteenth century, the expectation of service to society was also applied to the institutions and their faculty members, not just to their graduates (Rudolph, 1962, p. 272). Daniel Coit Gilman, president of Johns Hopkins, asserted that the services which the university rendered to society were "the acquisition, conservation, refinement and distribution of knowledge" (Rudolph, 1962, p. 272). As 24 colleges followed the lead of Johns Hopkins and began to adopt "the German concept of scholarly research for its own sake," creating universities, they also adopted the concept of research in its own right as a service to society (Brubaker, 1968, p. 394). Service did not win acceptance as an integral part of American higher education without some difficulty, however. Woodrow Wilson, president of Princeton, delivered a message in 1896 which he entitled, "Princeton in the Nation's Service" (Wilson, 1896, in Hofstater and Smith, 1964, p. 684). In this address, Wilson argued that "it is not learning but the spirit of service that will give a college place in the public annals of the nation" (Wilson, 1896, in Crosson, 1983, p. 25). He "spoke of 'public service' as an academic aim" (Veysey, 1965, p. 242). However, he "did so while maintaining the integrity . . . of the academic institution" and expressed the feeling that the demands of the external society were "grasping" (Veysey, 1965, p. 243). Thus it would seem that while he favored the idea of service to the nation, Wilson "insisted that higher learning was becoming far too practical in its focus" (Boyer and Hechinger, 1981, p. 13). Most colleges in the United States eventually did come to accept the uniquely American concept of service as a part of the mission of higher education. 25 To the English concept of the general culture of the educated gentleman and the German concept of scholarly research for its sake, the American university added another dimension; namely, that higher education to justify its own existence should seek to serve actively the basic needs of American life (Brubaker, 1968, p. 5). In no other place did this idea of serving basic needs bear more fruit than in the land-grant colleges created by the Morrill Act of 1862. Signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln, this legislation set aside public lands for sale in order to support and maintain at least one college in each state where the leading object shall be . . . to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts . . . in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life (The Morrill Act, 1862, in Crane, 1963, p. 192). The creation of land-grant colleges eventually provided a new dimension of service to American society in two distinct ways. First, land-grant colleges opened the doors of higher education to "children of the common people" who had been excluded from colleges in the past, thus serving a larger segment of American society than ever before (Morrill, 1960, p. 7). Secondly, land-grant colleges provided for direct service to the people of each state through extension, primarily agricultural experiment stations in the first 25 to 30 years after the 26 passage of the Morrill Act (Kerr, 1931, p. 19). Opening the doors of land-grant colleges to members of the mechanical trades and agricultural communities essentially led to the democratization of higher education in America, serving the educational needs of a far greater segment of the population than had ever been served before. The new type of college fulfilled the needs and aspirations of the common people. It offered equal opportunity for all. It limited the level of achievement, as well as opportunity, by no standard of wealth, privilege, or patronage (Kerr, 1931, p. 11). Land-grant institutions also served the nation by "helping to stimulate the growth" of public high school systems, so that students might be prepared for college level classes (Eddy, 1957, p. 116). By the early decades of the twentieth century, it was possible for the colleges to discontinue "preparatory departments" which had been necessary in their earlier years (Johnson, 1981, p. 336). It was for the services provided to their constituent states, however, that the land-grant colleges were most noted. They were praised for "serving ingenuously and usefully the community from which the sources of their strength arise" (Morrill, I960, p. 13). President Robert Van Hise of the University of Wisconsin was quoted as saying in 1904, "I shall never rest content 27 until the beneficent influences of the University . . . shall be made available in every home of the state" (Eddy, 1957, p. 114). He was considered the father of the "Wisconsin Idea," arguing that the boundaries of the university will be coterminous with those of the state, and the primary purpose of the university would be to service the needs of the state and its citizens (Crosson, 1983, p. 24-25). Agriculture and its continued improvement were the driving forces behind the services provided to each state's citizens. Improvement of agricultural methods was provided most directly to farmers through agricultural experimentation and dissemination of research results in the early period of land-grant college growth. In fact, the first federal support for research, the Hatch Act of 1887, "furnished funds for agricultural extension stations and experimental work" (Davis, 1974, p. 23). A unigue idea at the time was that "the work of scholars— and particularly their research— may be and at times should be deliberately planned toward utilitarian ends" (Anderson, 1976, p. 3). Coupled with this utilitarian research was the complementary concept of taking the "fruits of research . . . (Anderson, 1976, p. 4). to the people" In land-grant institutions "the emphasis has been on the usefulness and relevance of all learning to a better life . . ." (Morrill, 1960, p. 12). 28 As the land-grant colleges experienced an unprecedented period of growth in the early decades of the twentieth century, their services to constituents continued to grow as well. The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 provided aid to land-grant colleges so that they could take "home economics and agricultural instruction to those not attending or in residence at colleges" (Davis, 1974, p. 23). This concept broadened into a "function [that] is typically called continuing education" (Anderson, 1976, p. 5). Land-grant colleges became known for "their pioneering of adult education services" (Geiger, 1963, p. 64). Another service provided by land-grant colleges was particularly evident in the western states. There, land-grant colleges were known to provide service to their constituents by "elevating their general cultural level" (Geigar, 1963, p. 68). The training of military leadership was another service provided to the nation by land-grant colleges, a service often overlooked. The original Morrill Act of 1862 included a specific provision that, along with other "scientific and classical studies" instruction in "military tactics" should be a part of the curriculum (The Morrill Act, 1862, in Hofstadter and Smith, 1961, p. 568). Kerr asserted that, during World War I, "the outstanding test of the land-grant institutions was their 29 ability to furnish trained men for military leadership" (Kerr, 1931, p. 22). "Supplemented by the National Defense Act of 1916," land-grant colleges were responsible for "inject[ing] a strong civilian and university influence into the officer corps" through ROTC training programs (Geiger, 1963, p. 72). As land-grant institutions continued to grow, the colleges expanded their service function beyond the borders of their own states to provide services to the nation as a whole, and internationally as well. W.J. Kerr, President of Oregon State Agricultural College, stated in a 1931 speech that the aggregate national economic impact of new and improved agricultural "production resulting from agricultural research, teaching and extension" was estimated at more than one billion dollars per year (Kerr, 1931, p. 20). The impact of land-grant institutions was even felt internationally. In fact, Eddy noted that, "the land- grant idea of higher education in the service of all the people has become one of this country's most popular and least controversial exports" (Eddy, 1957, p. xi). Much of the land-grant institutions' influence overseas, however, came through "students who came to America . . . and returned to serve in their own lands" (Kuhn, 1955, p. 468). At the same time, land-grant institutions " . . . undertook to export educational methods which had proved 30 successful in America" (Kuhn, 1955, p. 468). Michigan State University was cited as a leader in giving "emphasis to world affairs education" (Allen, 1963, p. 42). American higher education in general, not just the land-grant institutions, expanded their concept of service in the first half of this century. . . . the service of the university was expanded to include service to the emerging new professions, service to science and technology, service to the advancement of new knowledge, service to the guilds of the academic disciplines and service to students willing to become initiates in the rite of passage into any profession . . . (Martin, 1977a, p. 5). Since World War II the services provided by higher education institutions in America have continued to expand, both in number and range as well as in the variety of people who have become recipients of such services (Martin. 1977a. p. 5). With major population shifts in the last 50 years from rural to urban to suburban areas, "the most spectacular need services has been forincreased to cities" (Allen, 1963, p. 26). Long and Groskind argued that just as the agricultural college paid its way by research and education relevant to the problems and pursuits of a nation of farmers, the modern public university can pay its way by being useful to a nation of city dwellers (Long and Groskind, 1972, p. 7). 31 The creation of "the American municipal university helped provide for educational opportunity and curricular diversity" (Crosson, 1983, p. 26). These municipal universities provided help by "meet[ing] the sweeping public demand . . . for more direct service to a fast industrializing and urbanizing society" (Brubaker and Rudy, 1976, p. 170). The centennial of the Morrill Act in 1962 caused many land-grant institutions to examine their service function, to face "the same central question they did at the outset: how could they best be of service to democracy?" (Nevins, 1962, p. 110). By this time the dream of Ezra Cornell, that "he wished to found a university in which any student could pursue any study to the height of his ability," had practically come true (Nevins, 1962, p. 111). Public universities, many of them land-grant. "had to serve democracy by molding unprecedented numbers" (Nevins, 1962, p. 111). The centennial of the Hatch Act in 1987 also coincided with the 125th anniversary of the signing of the Morrill Act. The combination of the two created an occasion for many land-grant institutions to re-examine their service mission (Mooney, 1987, p. Al). One of the questions which surfaced at that time was whether or not land-grant institutions had "served the constituencies they were intended to serve? Whom exactly, should they 32 serve?" (Mooney, 1987, p. A30). While some would argue that "one of the strengths of the land-grant universities is that [they] have been willing to change . . .," others contend that "they stand to lose their current land-grant identity" by giving "prestigious research that brings in large grants a higher priority than public service and teaching" (Mooney, 1987, p. A30). Thus it would seem that there is some confusion about the current status of the importance of public service in contemporary landgrant institutions. Definitions of Public Service As Crosson found in doing the research for her 1983 book, Public Service in Higher Education:__ P r a c tic e s , and Priorities. "the concept and definition of public service entail enormous difficulties . . . " 111)= (Crosson, 1983, p. She asserted that "perspectives on what is appropriate public service differ according to different conceptions of higher education as a whole" and she recommended further research to clarify the conflicting jumble of definitions found in the literature (Crosson, 1983, p. 111). This confusion regarding the definition of service has been recognized for some time in the literature. Nevitt Sanford, in his landmark publication, The American College, recognized as early as 1962 that, "service in 33 intellectual affairs, is often hard, if not impossible to define" (Sanford, 1962, p. 953). There was not even agreement in the literature on the term to be used for describing this mission of higher education. The review of literature by the investigator found a variety of terminology, including: service, public service, university service, community service and professional service. Long noted that the public service mission in American higher education was "now probably the most nebulous and ambiguous of institutional missions in definition, application and organization" (Long, 1977, p. 82). Martin, the editor of the volume in which Long's article appeared, asserted that Faculty members in American colleges and universities sit on the three-legged stool of teaching, research, and service. But they rest uneasily there because the legs of their stool are uneven. Teaching and research tend to balance out. Service, however, is short— poorly conceptualized and erratically expressed (Martin, 1977a, p. vii). The investigator found that, while some of the definitions of service offered in the literature were very precise and extensive, others tended to be rather nebulous. For example, Crosson in her major work on public service published in 1983, argued that these three broad categories of activities have come to be labeled service: 34 College or university service: committee or other governance activities internal to the department, college, school, or campus related to program development and institutional policy; Professional service: committee, editorial, or other work for national or regional professional associations and/or academic disciplines; Public service: activities other than basic research and teaching involving direct relationships with groups external to the academic community (Crosson, 1983, p. 5). Most definitions were not this precise, however. The Dictionary of Education, defined public services as "activities designed to reach the general population in the public interest" or "extension activities of educational institutions not classified as formal teaching and training" (Good, 1959, p. 497). Most definitions of service given in the literature agreed on one thing: the recipients of that service were external to the college or university itself. Faiman defined service as the making available of instruction and problem-solving support and assistance to individuals, public agencies, governmental units and industry outside of on-campus instruction and research activities (Faiman, 1972, p. 8). The Dictionary of Education subscribed to the external nature of service by defining public service programs as any one of various types of extension activities . . . directed to adults and others not the immediate students . . . by such means as radio and television broadcasting, visual aids, public lectures, popular courses, general and specialized information services, . . . conferences, 35 clinics, leadership training, in-service training, testing, community organization, . . ., etc. (Good, 1959, p. 419). The Thesaurus of ERIC Descriptors also gave evidence of the external nature of service. It defined public service as extension or voluntary service with government, community or charitable organizations, including activity of educational institutions and personnel, made available to the public outside the context of regular instruction and research programs (Houston, 1987, p. 193). McCallister agreed that the recipients of service are external to the college or university, but added the idea that service was provided not only by the institutions themselves but by their faculty and students as well. He defined service as . . .the utilization of the professional expertise and labor pool of the institution (including its students) for the benefit of the communities which contain those institutions (McCallister, 1976, p. 477). The Carnegie Commission shifted the focusofservice somewhat by addressing it as an activity of faculty members both in a professional capacity and as private citizens. They stated that as individual members of the community, faculty members serve in a variety of citizen capacities. . . While these faculty members often bring to their citizen-tasks their special expertise, these services cannot be distinguished from those of any citizen performing his civic duty (Carnegie Commission, 1972, p. 73). 36 Long provided a definition of public service that encompassed much of the foregoing and added several dimensions as well. He categorized public service activities into the following: ♦Dissemination of knowledge beyond the campus. ♦Delivery of instructional programs beyond the campus. ♦Applied research for immediate public problems. ♦Sharing of resources, including facilities and instructional and other learning resources and personnel. ♦Public participation in cultural, aesthetic, and other university activities. ♦The development of public policy issues and alternatives. ♦Community development and community problem solving (Long, 1977, p. 82, emphasis his). Another definition that, like Long's, tended to be more descriptive, was adopted by the University of Massachusetts in 1971. It included three major areas: ♦advice, information, and technical assistance to business, government, neighborhood groups, and individuals on problems which the University has competence to assist in solving; ♦research toward the solution of public policy problems, whether by individual or groups of faculty members or by the formal institutes and centers of the University; ♦conferences, institutes, seminars, workshops, short courses, and other non-degree-oriented upgrading and training for government officials, social service personnel, various professional people, business executives, and so on (quoted in Crosson, 1983, p. 7). 37 The authors of several of the recent research studies and doctoral dissertations dealing with public service have developed or adopted their own definitions. One, a study conducted in the University of California System in 1986, contained a definition of public service that was developed "in order to establish common language and understanding among the academic community" (Dowling, 1986, p. 4). The definition was as follows: Public service is the extension of research, teaching, and professional expertise of faculty members for the benefit of the community and the larger society. Directed at non-university audiences, it is normally— but not necessarily— uncompensated (Dowling, 1986, p. 4). The definition of public service has been a problem evident in doctoral dissertations dealing with the subject in recent years. Smith's 1982 study of the public service function in selected state colleges and universities defined academic public service as a programmatic relationship between university and community through which knowledge is brought to bear upon the resolution of public problems (Smith, 1982, p. 695-A). Several dissertations published during the last 20 years at Michigan State University revealed differing definitions of public service as well. Davis, in her 1974 dissertation on public service defined the term as "the application of knowledge" (Davis, 1974, p. 6). Shuib, in a 1983 study confined to the College of 38 Education at Michigan State University, chose to use a definition of public service that was contained in an MSU Mission Statement prior to the current version. It read, University public service is a purposive, institutionally organized activity to deliver the University's special competence to organizations, groups, and individuals outside the University in order to assist and facilitate problem solving. University public service is fundamentally educative and advances the creation and application of knowledge through planned programs and activities (quoted in Shuib, 1983, p. 18). Russell G. Mawby, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, delivered an address on public service at the 10Oth annual meeting of the National Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges in 1987. In this address, Mawby contended that public service was best conceived as dynamic and creative teaching and research carried out in the full dimensions of the human life­ span and the broad range of human associations both on and off campus (Mawby, 1987, p. 15). Mawby also asserted that there were five activities of universities that would fall under the rubric of public service although "up to now, few people have thought of them under that rubric” (Mawby, 1987, p. 9). activities were: Those (1) preservation of knowledge, (2) provision of aesthetic experience, (3) direct consumer services provided to communities, such as hospitals, clinics, hotels, and restaurants, (4) custodianship of 39 young people of collegiate age, and (5) entertainer for the masses, particularly the masses who watch intercollegiate athletics (Mawby, 1987, pp. 9-13). The lack of consistency in definition of public service was evident within the documents of Michigan State University as well. The current version of the MSU Mission Statement, adopted in 1982, acknowledged public service only indirectly and did not define it as such. The Mission Statement mentioned the university's efforts to "discover practical uses for theoretical knowledge and to speed the diffusion of information to residents of the state, the nation and the world" (MSU Mission Statement, p. 1). However, in terms of contemporary public service, it was mentioned only as a method through which "faculty validate past research findings and identify the need for new research and for modifications of curricula" (MSU Mission Statement, 1982, p. 3). The Michigan State University Faculty Handbook, under the section regarding Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, stated that public service involves application of the faculty member's professional training and competence to issues and problems of significance to constituencies and it is related to academic program objectives of the unit(s) in which the faculty member is appointed (MSU Office of Planning and Budgets Memorandum, 1988, p. 1). The MSU Statement on Academic Programs maintained that 40 in providing public service, the University utilizes available personnel and other resources, and cooperates with many public and private organizations in addressing significant problems for the benefit of society (MSU Office of Planning and Budgets Memorandum, 1988, p. 2). It was in examining the practical application of these statements that inconsistencies were revealed. In the Recommendation for Reappointment, Promotion or Tenure Action forms used by the Office of the Provost at Michigan State University, public service included: (1) Lifelong Education, (2) Cooperative Extension, (3) MSUsponsored international public outreach and technical assistance assignments, (4) Non-MSU-sponsored international program outreach and consulting activities, (5) professional/clinical services, (6) Urban Affairs Programs, and (7) other activities, which may include consulting with individuals, business, industry, government or other educational institutions, professional appearances before lay groups and professional media (MSU Office of Management and Budgets Memorandum, 1988, p. 3). However, when departments and colleges were asked to provide a record of "Professional Accomplishments" each year, faculty members were not permitted to include private consulting (MSU Office of Planning and Budgets Memorandum, 1988, p. 3). In his 1988 State of the University address, President John A. DiBiaggio mentioned public service as 41 being "ALWAYS based upon scholarship and faculty expertise, upon the dissemination of knowledge . . . " (DiBiaggio, 1988, p. 5, emphasis his). He acknowledged that there was a need "to pay our civic rent, so to speak, as citizens and as caring human beings," but contended that public service goes beyond that. DiBiaggio asserted that there is a special obligation of the scholar at Michigan State University to reach out to members of the human family in need of knowledge, insight, and assistance that can be provided so effectively by those in the academy (DiBiaggio, 1988, p. 5). He saw the mission of Michigan State University as a land-grant institution to transmit knowledge, generate new knowledge and apply knowledge (DiBiaggio, 1988, p. 5). Maior Works on Public Service A comprehensive review of the literature by the investigator found that, while public service is mentioned often in books and articles dealing with the purposes of higher education, there were only two major works devoted exclusively to public service. In addition, there were three major university studies on public service reported in ERIC documents, as well as six recent doctoral dissertations on the subject, two of which were done at Michigan State University. 42 Books Patricia Crosson authored the most comprehensive major work on public service. Published in 1983 as an ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report, Public Service in Higher Education:__ Practices and Priorities looked at public service as "a further extension of academe's curator [of knowledge] role" p. iii). (Crosson, 1983, She argued that "through public service, higher education institutions enable society to use knowledge more effectively" (Crosson, 1983, p. iii). Crosson began her report by acknowledging that "service is commonly listed among the three major missions and functions of higher education" and describing the types of activities that have commonly been categorized as service activities (Crosson, 1983, p. 5). Her first chapter outlined alternative concepts and perspectives on service as a mission in higher education institutions. She focused upon "three popular metaphors of higher education— ivory tower, social service station, and culture mart . . . " and examined how the public service function was carried out in each (Crosson, 1983, p. 10). The author also dealt with four different propositions concerning how the service role in higher education is best fulfilled— service through ideas of value, service through social criticism, service through social problem solving, and service through social activism (Crosson, 1983, p. 18). 43 The first chapter concluded by tracing the historical evolution of service and the various forms it has taken in contemporary times, including "municipal service" as a ideal in urban universities (Crosson, 1983, p. 26). The main body of Crosson's book was devoted to service in terms of its intended recipients: service to communities, service to state and local governments and service to business and industry. She stated that each type of activity is undertaken to some degree by all types of colleges and universities, but community colleges are the major force in community service, state universities are the primary providers of service to state and local government, and research universities, both public and independent, have become the major actors in new patterns of providing service for business and industry (Crosson, 1983, p. 7). Crosson concluded her book with a chapter on organizing for public service and a chapter on recommendations for further study. She reported that, while colleges and universities were structured "primarily to fulfill the missions for teaching and research," little, if any, attention was given to organizing to fulfill the public service mission (Crosson, 1983, p. 95). In most cases, "it is assumed that the public service mission will be fulfilled by the existing academic and administrative units," which, she argued, was an erroneous assumption (Crosson, 1983, p. 95). She described how some colleges and universities 44 had made an attempt to alleviate this problem, with such methods as special institutes and centers and continuing education programs or divisions (Crosson, 1983, pp. 99100 ). Crosson recommended changes in institutional policies, patterns of activity and reward structures so that the public service function could be more adequately fulfilled. She stated that "common wisdom holds that public service is not rewarded in academic communities" and "because public service is not rewarded, faculty members are reluctant to engage in it" (Crosson, 1983, p. 103). Crosson's final chapter included four areas she identified which need further research: 1) investigation of service as a mission, 2) analysis of the role of community colleges in community service, 3) evaluation of arrangements for providing service to government, and 4) development of a system for gathering and disseminating information about service to industry (Crosson, 1983, pp. 111-112). The second major work on service located by the investigator was a volume of the Jossey-Bass New Directions in Higher Education series entitled, Redefining Service. Research and Teaching. It was edited by Warren B. Martin and published in 1977. Martin argued that service has been "poorly conceptualized and erratically expressed" in the past and, consequently, 45 "more than equivalent attention must be given to service now compared to teaching and research, if it is to have an equal place in education's future" (Martin, 1977a, p. viii). In the first chapter, Martin advocated that "faculty members and administrators should seek to persuade the public that higher education serves society best as a center of independent thinking" (Martin, 1977a, p. ix). He noted that there is a time when, "in the interests of creativity and criticism, professionals will sometimes bite the hand that feeds them . . . " (Martin, 1977a, p. ix). Other chapters in this book dealt with service in its applied form, "demonstrat[ing] its value in action" (Martin, 1977a, p. ix). One of the chapters, which discussed the concept of service-learning, included three dimensions of service. The author saw service "(1) as a vehicle for learning, (2) as a creative response to careerism, and (3) as the primary function of faculty in teaching" (Duley, 1977, p. 23). Duley argued that the first two dimensions were dependent on the third and believed that the best way for faculty members to teach and encourage the development of a disposition toward service is to demonstrate it in the manner in which they serve students and fulfill their teaching function (Duley, 1977, p. 34). 46 Another relevant chapter in this book addressed "the contemporary view of American public colleges and universities [as] that of a commons to be used by all citizens for meeting as many of their needs as possible" (Long, 1977, p. 75). He warned, however, that public service programs must be natural by-products of research and teaching if universities are not to degenerate into omnibus social service organizations (Long, 1977, p. 75). In order to prevent this from happening, Long asserted that a "more precise operational definition of the public service mission itself" is needed (Long, 1977, p. 82). He concluded that while institutions of higher learning should not and cannot shirk their public service role [they] must continue to demonstrate the essential connection of service to instruction and research by which current and new knowledge is created and transmitted (Long, 1977, p. 85). Martin concluded his book by arguing that one way faculty members could "find meaning and delight once again in [their] work" would be to "change from a concern for specialization as technique to specialization as service" (Martin, 1977b, pp. 96-97). He believed faculty members "true professionals" when they "provide a social service, utilizing their skill in a service that shows not only their technical expertise but also their social commitment" (Martin, 1977b), p. 96). 47 Major Studies In addition to the two books cited above, a computerized search of the ERIC database located three major studies on public service which had been conducted in recent years. One of these studies was conducted in the University of California System, the second at the University of Minnesota, and the third studied a group of five state universities in Ohio. The California study, conducted in 1986, was designed to measure the motivation and role of faculty in public service activities (Dowling, 1986, p. 1). In the University of California system, public service was facilitated by the organizational structures within the university, including cooperative extension, university extension and two national laboratories, all of which "are semi-autonomous organizations which provide a large segment of the university's public service role in society" (Dowling, 1986, p. 8). In addition, Dowling found that there was "relatively high participation of all members of the professional schools and the College of Agriculture and Environmental Science . . . " (Dowling, 1986, p. 13). Dowling's study included a specialized section on faculty members at University of California at Davis who had participated in "advising in policy related issues where their expertise could be used to help legislators" 48 (Dowling, 1986, p. 16). These faculty members reported that the important incentives for such involvement in public policy advising, in rank order, included -efficient utilization of their time, -utilization of advice in a professional manner, -relevance of their expertise to policy in question, -intellectual stimulation, -influence on policy decisions, -additional publications and grants, -notification of contribution in personnel file, -monetary reimbursement, -enhanced professional prestige, and -association with well-known officials (Dowling, 1986, p. 19). The 1975 University of Minnesota study was an opinion questionnaire administered to all faculty members, of whom 2,346, or seventy per cent, responded (Kanun, 1975, p. 1). She found that a faculty member's characteristic participation in community programs is similar to his on-campus professional activity. The unique aspect of community programs is that teaching and professional service occurred in non-traditional settings with non-traditional clientele (Kanun, 1975, p. 6). Kanun's questions dealt with several themes, including individual faculty obligations and responsibilities for community services, professional concerns and professional risks. In this section, there was majority agreement among respondents on the following: Faculty members as citizens have an obligation to actively commit themselves to the solution of community problems. 49 Current political visibility of faculty involvement in community service programs is appropriate. The faculty can and should be protected from political consequences of community service activity. Community service is not antithetical to the individual faculty member's professional interest. Teaching and research are the major forms of community service (Kanun, 1975, p. 6). A second section of the survey dealt with "societal" questions, asking "opinions about the University and the faculty in relation to social problems" (Kanun, 1975, p. 7). This section did not reveal clear majorities, as the previous sections had, but rather found "contrast among the colleges in response to a number of the items in this group" (Kanun, 1975, p. 7). There was consensus, however, on the item, "The University can survive whether or not it is involved in redressing current social injustices" (Kanun, 1975, p. 7). The final section of the Minnesota survey addressed "the necessary conditions and ambiguities of University involvement in community programs and services" (Kanun, 1975, p. 8). Kanun reported majority agreement that: Faculty participation in community programs and service is not tied to specialized skills and specific academic disciplines. Competent solution of community problems depends upon faculty communication and cooperation across disciplinary lines. 50 Participation in community programs is not limited to specialized academic disciplines. Appointment of a special staff for participation in community programs should not be made. (Kanun, 1975, p. 8). The 1984 study of five state universities in Ohio centered upon attitudes of faculty members toward university-sponsored service programs (Johnson, et al, 1984, p. 2). Subjects were asked to indicate the extent of previous experience in service activities . . . to respond to various aspects of service in relation to the institution and their roles as faculty members, and finally, to indicate their feelings about the possible expansion of service programs (Johnson, et al, 1984, p. 19). Results indicated that "a substantial majority of the faculty sample" were found to be "favorably inclined towards the expansion of service programs and prepared to participate themselves" (Johnson, et at, 1984, p. 21). Other results of interest were: 1) that despite positive attitudes toward service, faculty members were concerned about constraints on their time and, 2) that "external service had 'very little impact' on their regular salary or on promotion and tenure decisions" (Johnson, et al, 1984, pp. 26,28). Dissertations Finally, the investigator did a computerized data base search in Dissertation Abstracts International. 51 Although the database was searched back to 1856, the small yield of relevant dissertations on public service were all written in the last twenty years. A case study on the public service function at the University of Delaware in 1981 compared results of "a 1980 study of University leaders' perceptions of public service" with an earlier faculty opinion survey conducted in the 1974-75 academic year (Sills, 1981, p. 549-A). In addition, data from selected university historical and contemporary written materials on public service were presented (Sills, 1981, p. 549-A). Another case study, conducted in 1979 at the University of Cincinnati, dealt with the "issue of community service as an activity contributing to the core mission" of the institution (Wells, 1979, p. 1827-A). Results of this study indicated that "implementation (direct involvement) was the urban activity having greatest impact on teaching, although most faculty engaged in consultation" (Wells, 1979, p. 1827-A). Of particular interest were findings which indicated that reward was not determined by frequency of participation. In fact, there appeared to be an inverse relationship . . . the higher the level of urban participation, the least likelihood of reward. Reward by the University for community service was predicted by recognition from groups outside the university . . . Practitioners received recognition by outside groups, but were not rewarded by the University (Wells, 1979, p. 1827-A). 52 Wells concluded from her study that the "'espoused theory' (community service is a valued activity) conflicted with the 'theory-in-use' (publish or perish)" (Wells, 1979, p. 1827-A). The stated mission of the University was not supported in practice. An identical conclusion was found in a 1982 study conducted for the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Data was collected from some 255 member institutions. The questionnaire yielded results "that gave an indication of the relative emphasis placed upon academic pubic service as an institutional responsibility" (Smith, 1982, p. 695-A). Many of the institutions which "placed greater emphasis upon academic public service . . . adapted in order to accommodate the public service function" (Smith, 1982, p. 695-A). Smith concluded by recommending that individual institutions undertake reviews of policy and procedures with a goal of making them more consistent with institutional claims of responsibility for academic public service (Smith, 1982, p. 695-A). A study of community college faculty members' involvement in community service programs was conducted in 1972. Connolly identified a sample of 350 faculty members randomly selected from catalogues provided by 31 member institutions of the American Association of Junior Colleges. Through use of critical incident technique, Connolly discovered that "the community college faculty 53 sampled were not substantially involved in community service activities" (Connolly, 1972, p. 2730-A). In addition, Connolly found that most of the faculty members were involved in "none or only one community service activity" and "the mean number of activities engaged in was 1.88" (Connolly, 1972, p. 2730-A). Connolly also discovered that the attitude of administrators toward community service involvement had an "overwhelming impact," both positively and negatively, on the degree of faculty participation (Connolly, 1972, p. 2730-A). Dissertations From Michigan State University Several dissertations which studied Michigan State University were also reviewed. A 1971 study of perceived and preferred university goals at MSU collected data from students, faculty, administrators and trustees (Stead, 1971, p. 57). Of the goals which dealt directly with the public service function of the university, Stead found that, in almost every case, the perceived importance of public service goals was higher than their preferred importance to faculty members (Stead, 1971, pp. 75-79). The one item on which faculty members agreed that the preferred importance should be higher was make sure that salaries, teaching assignments and privileges always reflect the contribution that the person involved is making to his own profession or discipline" (Stead, 1971, p. 76). 54 Davis conducted a study in 1974 which dealt with how state legislators viewed the public service function of state-supported universities, including Michigan State University. She constructed a questionnaire and administered it by personal interview to a random sample of the "membership of the legislative committees that work directly with higher education legislation" (Davis, 1974, p. ii). Among Davis' conclusions were the following: 1) The public service function of universities is an appropriate function of state-supported universities. 2) Universities should increase the amount of time spent on university-sponsored public services. 3) A public service option should be incorporated into the university procedures for faculty promotion, assessment and professional advancement (Davis, 1974, pp. iii-iv) A 1983 study on perceptions of faculty members toward public service activities was limited to the College of Education at Michigan State University. Shuib developed both a questionnaire and "card-sort" to determine what activities faculty members felt should receive "load credit" (be considered part of the job) and which should not (Shuib, 1983, p. ii). Shuib discovered that faculty members in the MSU College of Education felt that activities which should receive load credit included: 1) on-going projects, university sponsored, and payment goes to the university; 2) on-going projects, non-credit producing, [in which] faculty volunteer their time and receive no payment from the client institutions; 3) on-going projects, credit producing; 4) one-shot projects, non-credit producing, and payment goes to the university; and 5) state/federal committees. (Shuib, 1983, p. iii). Conversely, there was consensus among faculty members in the College of Education that "generally on­ going and one-shot projects in which faculty involved received payments from the client institutions" should not receive load credit (Shuib, 1981, p. iii). An undecided category also emerged, in which many faculty members placed such activities as "committee roles and one-shot projects in which faculty members volunteered their time and were not paid by the client institutions" (Shuib, 1983, p. iii). The Role of Public Service in Faculty Workload Expectations Faculty workload was defined by one author as "any combination of activities that adds up to the total work output normally expected of a faculty member employed full-time at his job" (Halstead, 1974, p. 682). Even within the context of this very broad, general definition, public service played a small part in faculty 56 workload expectations and, in some instances, was not mentioned at all (Clark, 1987; Feasley, 1978; French, 1965). Quigley maintained that "during recent decades few authorities in higher education have done much more than give lip service to public service" (Quigley, 1986, p. 175). Another author, in a book directed toward new faculty members, made participation in any service activity sound like something akin to taking one's medicine when he stated, "service to the institution must be taken as part of one's academic responsibilities" (Higham, 1974, p. 233). The role of public service in faculty workload expectations cannot be properly understood, however, unless it is considered within the larger context of the mission and purpose of higher education. Educational Mission There was general agreement in the literature that "the traditional formulation of the mission of a university in this country is tripartite: teaching, research and public service" (Smith, 1978, p. 2). Smith went on to argue, however, that there was a "precondition of effective conduct of any of the three activities . . . knowledge" (Smith, 1978, p. 2). Smith also believed that the purpose of universities requires two assumptions about knowledge: (1) it exists, even though concepts about its nature, scope, organization, and uses may be eternally 57 controverted and subject to modification; and (2) it is both an inherent need of humankind and a contribution to the public good that the realms of knowledge be identified, organized, refreshed, criticized to rank-order their relative worth or utility (Smith, 1978, p. 2). Nevitt Sanford, in his landmark work, The American College, argued that "the business of the university is the advancement of knowledge" (Sanford, 1962, p. 952). Bowen expressed the "need for 'knowledge transfer' from the discoverers to the users" (Bowen, 1986, p. 20). Another author agreed, by asserting that the university has two functions, "the discovery of knowledge and the delivery of knowledge" (Johnson, 1972, p. 29). A group of scholars at the University of Wisconsin Madison, when asked to address the question of the purpose of higher education, made the following statement; The primary purpose of the University is to provide an environment in which faculty and students can discover, examine critically, preserve and transmit the knowledge, wisdom, and values that will help ensure the survival of the present and future generations with improvement in the quality of life (Potter, et al, 1970, p. 1591). Kaysen saw the "social functions of the system of higher education" as being ". . .the creation of new knowledge, . . .the transmission of knowledge, . . . [and] . . .the application of knowledge. 1969, pp. 5-7). . ." (Kaysen, Perkins advocated "the dynamic nature of 58 knowledge" and saw the three functions as being inextricably interrelated: The acquisition of knowledge through the exercise of reason is only part of the story. Knowledge acquired must be transmitted, or it dies. Knowledge acquired and transmitted must be used, or it becomes sterile and inert. . . the very process of transmission, together with the discipline of application, stimulates and guides those who work at the frontiers of knowledge (Perkins, 1967, p. 115). Perkins went on to conclude that "taken separately, the three aspects of knowledge lead nowhere; together they can and have produced an explosion that has changed the world" (Perkins, 1967, p. 115). Johnson agreed, stating that "the discovery, the transmission and the application of knowledge [are] a replenishing cycle" (Johnson, 1972, p. 29). McAllister also agreed, saying these three functions are not seen as separate and distinct enterprises but rather, because of the way in which they have evolved, as complementary phases of the same general activity (McAllister, 1976, p. 480). Perkins put the tripartite nature of knowledge in practical terms, arguing that the three aspects of knowledge have their institutional reflections in the three missions of the university: the acquisition of knowledge is the mission of research; the transmission of knowledge is the mission of teaching; and the application of knowledge is the mission of public service (Perkins, 1967, p. 116). 59 Thus the educational mission of the institution was seen as the driving force behind the expectations of faculty workload. However, to separate the three functions so distinctly was very difficult for several authors (Kalab, 1986; McAllister, 1976). Workload Expectations Robert Blackburn, in his chapter The Meaning of Work in Academia, argued that analyzing the component parts of a professor's workload by breaking it down into "separate roles and finer and finer phases" was predicated upon the "fundamental assumption that analyzing parts will somehow produce understanding of the whole" (Blackburn, 1974, p. 76). He went on to argue for the "indivisibility of academic work," with each of the professorial roles in research, teaching and public service having an effect on each of the others (Blackburn, 1974, p. 77). McAllister concurred, stating that there are forms of research which may have payoff in the teaching arena and in the service arena and that in fact there are forms of all three which may be seen as examples of each of the others (McAllister, 1976, p. 473). The importance of each role, however, was not equivalent. McAllister recognized that "the blessed trinity of academe has three parts: teaching, service, and research and, paraphrasing St. Paul, the greatest of these is research" (McAllister, 1976, p. 471). While he 60 stated that "professors must not be one-dimensional persons. . .especially. . .if that one dimension would be service," he also went on to argue that "clearly we are dealing with a hierarchy of virtues" (McAllister, 1976, p. 471). McAllister concluded with "a fundamental belief that there may be useful interplay (even feedback) between different virtues" (McAllister, 1976, p. 472). The amount of time devoted to each of these three dimensions of faculty workload differed from the perceived relative importance of each. While research was seen as most important and was most highly rewarded, Bowen found that "about three fourths of faculty time is devoted to teaching" (Bowen, 1977, p. 293). Since "administrative work absorbs some of the time" remaining, he postulated that "perhaps one fifth of total faculty time is available, on the average, for research and public service" (Bowen, 1977, p. 293). Since Blackburn found that "both historically and currently, faculty tend to work between fifty-five and sixty hours a week," this would mean that only 10 to 12 hours of work time would go toward research and public service (Blackburn, 1974, p. 77). Bowen also asserted that "most studies of faculty working time find that the total time is far above the conventional forty hours a week" (Bowen, 1977, p. 293). The disparity in importance of these three components of faculty workload was also evident in other 61 studies. One analysis of institutional expenditures for instruction, research and public service found that 65% of institutional expenditures went toward instruction, 24% toward research, and only 11% toward public service functions (Bowen, 1977, p. 294). McAllister stated "that there is a relationship between the importance of any of the three virtues and the ease of articulating or measuring that virtue" and that "the way in which. . . service is to be measured is rarely spelled out and generally of little consequence anyway" (McAllister, 1976, p. 472). Blackburn argued that in many respects the faculty service role remains taboo. It has not been studied, and faculty seldom raise the topic or request official guidelines about it. But administrators extol its importance . . . (Blackburn, 1974, p. 89). In examining this issue of the public service role in faculty workload expectations, the investigator discovered almost as much disparity as in the previous section on definitions of the term. Bowen and Schuster agreed that "the public service activities of faculties are perhaps less recognized and less understood than their other functions” (Bowen and Schuster, 1986, p. 19). Several authors choose to divide service into two component parts: 1) those services performed within the academic community, and 2) those performed outside the institution. Morrill and Spees included in the first 62 category such specific services as committee work within the department and/or college, as well as institutional service such as governance representation (Morrill and Spees, 1982, p. 183). In addition to those cited above, Blackburn added participation in commencements and receptions and time spent with visitors from other colleges and countries, forms and questionnaires and correspondence, negotiations with foundations and governmental agencies, and a potpourri of other activities that over a period of a year fill a tremendous number of hours (Blackburn, 1974, p. 89). Higham cited such activities as "assisting as a host at some social function or parents' day. . .[or] collecting funds for one of the perennial charity drives" as examples of service as well (Higham, 1974, p. 234). He also mentioned serving on a search committee or writing speeches as other possible internal service functions (Higham, 1974, p. 236). A wide diversity of external activities were cited as examples of public service by faculty members. Higham divided external activities into four categories "professional, community, political and personal" (Higham, 1974, p. 244). He included in these four categories such activities as being a panelist at a professional meeting, holding an office in a professional organization, serving as a consultant, lobbying, going into politics and service within the community (Higham, 63 1974, pp. 244-246). Startup mentioned participation in professional associations, "fee paid employment" or consulting, and "locally based activities" or participation by the faculty member in community-based activities (Startup, 1979, p 79). In addition to those listed above, Blackburn added such activities as "referee[ing] articles for their journal editors, and communicat[ing] with peers at other institutions across the country and around the world" (Blackburn, 1974, p. 89). He also listed several examples of "community relations" activities, including "contribut[ing] their expertise to the city council, the local school board, and social agencies and organizations . . .[and] speak[ing] for service clubs and organizations" (Blackburn, 1974, p. 89). Morrill and Spees also mentioned union organization and collective bargaining, lobbying, campaigning for "larger social issues such as environmental problems," and "area community services" such as holding memberships in local groups or giving speeches (Morrill and Spees, 1982, p. 184). Consulting Some disparity was also found in the literature regarding whether or not consulting for pay should be counted toward the public service activities of a faculty member. As Blackburn stated, "If a professor receives 64 money for engaging in the activity, is it really service?" (Blackburn, 1974, p. 90). A number of authors indicated that established policies regarding consulting for pay were scarce or ignored. Teague quoted a 1978 study which "found that most higher educational institutions either lack adequate policies governing extramural activities of faculty or ignore the existing policies" (Teague, 1982, p. 180). He concluded that "current policies, in general, can be described only as piecemeal, lacking sound and consistent guidelines regarding faculty consulting" (Teague, 1982, p. 185). Blackburn concurred, stating that "policy questions of external service are often simply set aside and ignored except when reports are submitted to demonstrate that indeed faculty aid society" (Blackburn, 1974, p. 90). In a report on a 1978 project regarding "ethical and economic issues of supplemental activities," Watkins found that "most colleges and universities either lack adequate policies covering faculty members' outside activities or ignore the policies they do have" (Watkins, 1978, p. 13). Dillon and Bane prepared a compendium of the consulting policies of almost 100 universities in 1980 and concluded that "many (if not most) universities do not have detailed policy statements" (Dillon and Bane, 1980, p. 54). Aggarwal concluded that 65 many university policies regarding outside consulting by faculty may be hard to enforce, given traditional standards of work and behavior in the academic profession (Aggarwal, 1981, p. 19). When stated policies were examined, the majority agreed that when consulting for pay was allowed, it should not take more than 20% of the faculty member's time, or on the average one day per week during the regular academic year (Teague, 1982, p. 183; Aggarwal, 1981, p. 19; Burnett and Martin, 1981, p. 195; Watkins, 1978, p. 1). One possible source of the confusion regarding paid consulting seemed to be "uncertainty in the definition of 'faculty load,' which makes it virtually impossible to determine what is 'overload'" (Marsh and Dillon, 1980, p. 547). Marsh and Dillon went on to say that it is particularly difficult to determine when, if at all, these activities that result in supplemental income should be considered as part of the regular responsibility of faculty and when they might detract from academic activities that faculty might otherwise undertake (Marsh and Dillon, 1980, p. 547). Olswang agreed, stating that "the concept of what constitutes full-time service for a faculty member has never been well understood or defined" (Olswang, 1984, p. 32). Watkins reported that "Stanford's policy defines consulting as a professional activity for a fee related 66 to the faculty member's field" (Watkins, 1978, p. 13). In describing public service, Faiman specifically inserted this caveat: "Consulting by faculty acting as private citizens is not included in this" (Faiman, 1972, p. 14, emphasis added). Burnett and Martin recognized the lack of consistency across campuses, stating that: On some campuses consulting for pay may not be considered by administration as a public service. If such is the attitude, the professor may not be able to claim credit for service in this category at performance evaluation time" (Burnett and Martin, 1981, p. 195, emphasis added). Wildavsky argued that one of the "standard rationales. . .generally presented for regulating faculty consulting [is] that it is a privilege, not a right" (Wildavsky, 1978, p. 13). McAllister expressed the opinion that "some people consider free service to be the only genuine form of service, but this is debatable" (McAllister, 1976, p. 477, emphasis added). Thus, it would seem that most authors did not consider consulting for pay as part of the traditional public service function of faculty members. There were several authors, however, who stated that consulting for pay could be considered as part of the traditional public service function of faculty members. Boyer and Lewis began their article on consulting with the statement, "faculty consulting has been viewed traditionally as an important form of public service in 67 higher education" (Boyer and Lewis, 1984, p. 637). Dillon and Bane used almost the same wording: "consulting has traditionally been viewed as an important form of public service" (Dillon and Bane, 1980, p. 52). Boyer and Lewis went on to argue that consulting is viewed as a traditional faculty role and responsibility that has long been recognized as an important form of public service on the part of both individual faculty members and the academic institution (Boyer and Lewis, 1985, p. 178). In reporting a study involving Maryland public higher education institutions, Allard stated that "one mechanism available for fulfilling part of this public service responsibility is to permit and encourage individual faculty to consult or to provide professional services" (Allard, 1982, p. 8). Thus, it would seem that these authors disagreed with the majority and would argue that consulting for pay should indeed be included in the traditional public service activities of faculty members. Evaluation of and Reward for. Service The rather large body of literature that dealt with the evaluation of service and its rewards was quite consistent: almost all agreed that "public and community service is infrequently recognized and rewarded" (Centra, 1980, p. 133). There was also consistent agreement in the literature that " . . . service is the least valued of 68 faculty activities . . . (Euster and Weinbach, 1983, p. 108). Evaluation of Service Before service activities could be evaluated, they would, of necessity, need to be discretely identified. The expectation that service activities could be separated from the other vital roles a faculty member plays, as teacher and researcher, was questioned by several authors. Blackburn asserted that an analysis of service activities made as if the faculty role were a job that could be dissectable into parts with numerical values assigned to each aspect misses the fact that service, too, is a way of life and not just a work activity (Blackburn, 1974, p. 91). Blackburn believed that "judgments must be made on the total, integrated individual, not on a piece-by-piece analysis in which the parts are somehow weighted and summed" (Blackburn, 1974, p. 91). McAllister concurred, stating that research, teaching and service "are not seen as separate and distinct enterprises but rather. . .as complementary phases of the same general activity" (McAllister, 1976, p. 480). He went on to say, that "until the reward system is modified to recognize teaching and service as well as research," it would be doubtful that recognition of the three as part of the same general activity would ever be achieved (McAllister, 1976, p. 480). 69 Few authors made any attempt to identify what activities should "count" as public service, let alone how much weight they should be given in the tenure and promotion process. The investigator also discovered the "quantity vs. quality" argument presented by several authors as well. Dressel pointed out quite clearly that while public service programs should be "guided by purposes and objectives, . . . the objectives of many of these programs are quite unclear" (Dressel, 1978, pp. 365-366). He asserted that this lack of clarity led to "success be[ing] measured by growing demand rather than by product evaluation" (Dressel, 1978, p. 367). Florestano and Hambrick agreed that evaluation of public service was difficult, but for a different reason. Part of the difficulty in evaluating public service is the general lack of attempts to distinguish between activities that are and are not profession based (Florestano and Hambrick, 1984, p. 18). Centra stated that documentation regarding public service activities should be included in a faculty member's annual report, and should include "description of objectives, perceived outcomes, time involved, and remuneration received" (Centra, 1980, p. 135). He went on to say that "merely being involved in public or community service is not a sufficient indicator of effectiveness" (Centra, 1980, p. 135). 70 Haberman and Quinn offered one of the few articles which outlined suggested guidelines for evaluation of public service activities. They listed several criteria which must be met for an activity to be counted as public service, then provided examples of activities on four levels, each with a successively higher degree of involvement (Haberman and Quinn, 1977, pp. 140, 150). They also outlined documentation necessary to support the faculty member's involvement, as well as six criteria for evaluating such service involvement, including "accurately and clearly perceived relevant problems, . . .demonstrated creativity,. . .[and] effective leadership" (Haberman and Quinn, 1977, p. 150). Several authors offered samples of evaluation instruments in their articles. Gunn, for example, presented a "bipolar evaluation instrument" on teaching, research and service which utilized a "proficiency scale" from one to ten on a number of measures (Gunn, 1982, p. 26). The service category, weighted at only 10% of the total score, included only service on university-wide and departmental committees (Gunn, 1982, p. 26). Newton also offered a scale of sorts, a "performance-based teacher evaluation system" (Newton, 1982, p. 40). His scale also included a category for evaluation of service but it contained only institutional committee work (Newton, 1982, p. 41). 71 Miller's evaluation scale, on the other hand, was not as elaborate, including only two categories: 1) value of the service contribution to those who received it, and 2) quality of the faculty member's performance as a contribution to the profession (Miller, 1972, p. 67). Florestano and Hambrick argued that evaluation of profession-related service should measure the following four categories: 1) impact, 2) intellectual and professional soundness, 3) administrative efficiency and effectiveness, and 4) marketability and client appeal (Florestano and Hambrick, 1984, p. 19). Seldin also offered an evaluation scale, but his was more a measure of the faculty member's attitude toward service activities than a measure of actual participation. He included such things as "makes a positive contribution to assigned committees,. . . actively supports departmental and institutional goals, . . .[and] does an appropriate share of institutional service assignments" (Seldin, 1980, p. 124). Magnuson chose to divide his evaluation of service activities into three categories: 1) university service, 2) professional service, and 3) community service (Magnuson, 1987, p. 522). Under each, he offered a seven point rating scale, with one indicating no service in that category and the other six points including examples of increasingly higher levels of involvement (Magnuson, 72 1987, p. 522). categorization: Stroup suggested a slightly different 1) continuing education/public service, 2) university service, 3) school and departmental service, and 4) community service (Stroup, 1983, p. 53). Several authors agreed that quality rather than quantity measures of faculty participation in public service activities were most appropriate. Florestano and Hambrick stated that ’’qualitative measures for professional services are weak," thus making it more attractive to fall back upon quantitative measures (Florestano and Hambrick, 1984, p. 19). Blackburn argued, however, that simply reporting the nature and amount and kinds of activities (committees served on, professional meetings attended, and the like) fails to reflect the significance of the activity (Blackburn, 1974, p. 91). Stecklein, on the other hand, stated that "no one has come up with a widely accepted definition of effort other than time" (Stecklein, 1974, p. 15). Reward for Service Activities Shulman accurately summed up the situation with respect to reward for service activities: "service is not given any significant weight" (Shulman, 1979, p. 29). She went on to quote another study which stated that "service is so underrated they do not include any figures on the weight given it in the evaluation process" (Shulman, 1979, p. 29). 73 This lack of reward for service has long been an issue in American higher education. Service was given scant recognition as far back as the early decades of the twentieth century. Logan Wilson quoted two studies, from 1913 to 1931, which found that public service accounted for 6.4% and 5.1%, respectively, of the weight given in consideration for promotion (Wilson, 1942, p. 101). He also quoted a 1937 article which asserted that although extra-mural service is to receive credit, it is of secondary importance and 'should not be weighted in such a way as to make up for deficiencies in teaching, research and services directly to the University'" (Wilson, 1942, p. 103). Euster and Weinbach also recognized that public service was not seen as a "critical factor in evaluating faculty members" (Euster and Weinbach, 1983, p. 109). They quoted Centra's study of department heads which found that "only two percent considered public and community service to be a critical factor in evaluating faculty members, while a third [of the respondents] said it was not a factor at all" (Centra, 1980, p. 133). A report released at the 1985 annual meeting of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, maintained that outside activities receive 'a great deal of lip service' in the university's traditional three-pronged mission of teaching, research and service, but 'they have never been given any status' (Watkins, 1985, p. 23). 74 As a result of this lack of recognition and reward, "faculty members themselves express uncertainty about the value of their service role" (Euster and Weinbach, 1983, p. 109). Euster and Weinbach summarized the situation by stating there is consensus that faculty members are expected to provide public service, [but] they also recognize that service does not count much in their performance evaluations (Euster and Weinbach, 1983, p. 109). Dressel concurred, asserting that "external services are sometimes ignored or assigned an inferior role . . ." (Dressel, 1978, p. 367). Seldin stated that although community service is considered a valuable and proper role for a faculty member, it is not included by most institutions in tenure and promotion decisions. At some institutions, community service is regarded as lightweight (Seldin, 1984a, p. 151). Johnson went so far as to say that there was "discrimination against public service as a justifying factor for salary increases and promotions" (Johnson, 1972, p. 30). A 1986 study on dimensions of stress among university faculty members at doctorate-granting institutions revealed "five distinct dimensions of perceived stressful conditions and situations" (Gmelch, Wilke and Lovrich, 1986, p. 272). The first of these dimensions addressed the area of faculty reward and 75 recognition. Gmelch, et al, discovered that three out of the top four factors which had the highest loading in this area were 1) receiving inadequate university recognition for community service, 2) having insufficient reward for institutional/ departmental service, [and] 3) not having clear criteria for evaluating service activities (Gmelch, Wilke and Lovrich, 1986, p. 273). Several other studies reported in the literature found similar disregard for service in the faculty reward structure. For example, a 1984 study on tenure and merit pay revealed that faculty. . .overwhelmingly agreed that service has almost no impact on tenure decisions. All faculty are expected to do some service, but, as one participant put it, 'no one has ever been found lacking in service'" (Kasten, 1984, p. 507). In other words, Kasten found that there were "rewards for valued acts without sanction for lack of performance" (Kasten, 1984, p. 512). Kohl's 1980 study of incentive/reward systems at a land-grant university revealed that: 1) faculty members preferred to do more public service activities than they actually did, and 2) "faculty ratings of actual activities and department head ratings of preferred faculty activities for all categories" were significantly different "except extension/public service and paid consulting" (Kohl, 1980, p. 1429-A). Blai's 1982 study 76 revealed some "expressed dissatisfaction" because community service had "higher preferred than perceived importance" (Blai, 1982, p. 7). Despite the overwhelming evidence that public service is not rewarded, there were several authors who asserted that this should not be the case. Florestano and Hambrick contended that public service should be but is not well rewarded in most university environments, and this absence of reward prevents the full development of outreach programs (Florestano and Hambrick, 1984, p. 18). Votruba agreed, stating that unless outreach efforts are more fully integrated into the traditional faculty reward system, continuing education and public service stand little chance of achieving more than a peripheral status in the life of the university (Votruba, 1978, p. 639). Florestano and Hambrick speculated on reasons why service is not highly rewarded. Their reasons included: 1) Public service is so loosely defined that profession-related and non-profession-related services are not distinguished from one another ? 2) Because good measures of professional public service do not exist, it is difficult to distinguish the excellent from the good, the good from the mediocre, or the mediocre from the poor; 3) Professional public service is not highly valued by university faculty members and administrators and, thus, not well rewarded (Florestano and Hambrick, 1984, p. 18). 77 There were several studies in the literature which went against the common trend, however. These studies acknowledged that, however small, service did have an effect on salary and promotion decisions. Kasten reviewed recent studies in her 1984 article and concluded that although "less highly rewarded, several studies indicated that the effects [of service] are still statistically significant" (Kasten, 1984, p. 501). She went on to conclude that "the service available to a typical faculty member is likely to have a small but measurable effect on faculty rewards" (Kasten, 1984, p. 501). Tuckman reported on research which used data from a 1972-73 national cross-section study of faculty conducted for the American Council on Education. He found that "public service is recognized by a larger salary increment, on the average, than is teaching. Males earn an average $535 more. . .females earn an average $209 more, but this amount [for females] was not statistically significant" (Tuckman, 1976, p. 59). Seldin reported on a survey of "all the accredited, four-year, undergraduate liberal arts colleges listed in the U.S. Department of Education's Directory" which was conducted in early 1983 (Seldin, 1984b, p. 28). He found that 52.6% of those responding had considered campus committee work as a factor in evaluating overall faculty 78 performance, while 24.5% included activity in professional societies as a factor (Seldin, 1984b, p. 29). In addition, public service and consultation with government and/or business were considered as factors in 17.4% of cases and 2.4% of cases respectively (Seldin, 1984b, p. 29). Summary This chapter has provided a comprehensive overview of the pertinent literature on public and community service. It included five sections: 1) history of service, 2) definitions, 3) major works on public service, 4) the role of public service in faculty workload, and 5) evaluation of and reward for service. History of Service Although the concept of service to society has been a part of American higher education since colonial times, the birth of land-grant colleges in the latter half of the nineteenth century marked the beginning of service as it is known today. The creation and expansion of land- grant institutions served the nation through two methods: 1) opening the doors of higher education to the common people, and 2) disseminating practical knowledge to farmers through agricultural experimentation. Other services to American society by the land-grant institutions included stimulation of growth in the public 79 high school system, adult and continuing education, military leadership through officer training programs, and provision of cultural activities for the communities in which they were located. Since World War II, American higher education has expanded the concept of public service far beyond the improvement of agricultural methods attributed to early land-grant colleges. The shift in population from rural to urban to suburban areas necessitated a shift in college and university service to a broader range of constituencies than ever before. In the process, many institutions re-examined their traditional missions to test for relevance to contemporary times. Definitions The second section dealt with the numerous definitions of public and community service found in the literature. Not only was there no unanimity in definitions, but authors did not even agree on the terminology which should be used to describe this mission of higher education. For example, Crosson advocated the use of the term "university service" to denote participation in institutional governance and on internal committees, "professional service" for committee work and other efforts on behalf of professional organizations or academic disciplines, and "public service" to denote activities which involved direct relationships with 80 groups outside the university (Crosson, 1983, p. 5). Almost all of the definitions did agree on one factor, however: that recipients of service were external to the academic community. Many authors also specified that service involved the application of professional expertise or competence to a particular problem, situation, or community group. There was also an underlying agreement in the definitions that society, in some way, would benefit by the service mission of higher education institutions. Michigan State University documents were also found to contain conflicting definitions of public service. While the current (1982) form of the MSU Mission Statement only addressed public service indirectly, the Faculty Handbook specifically defined public service as the application of the faculty member's professional competence to issues and problems of significance to constituencies (MSU Office of Planning and Budgets Memorandum, 1988, p. 1). The MSU Recommendation for Reappointment, Promotion or Tenure Action forms included seven specific categories of activities in the public service section. The instructions for a faculty member's annual report, however, specifically excluded private consulting, which often involved use of the same skills and professional expertise called for in unpaid public service. 81 Maior Works on Public Service The section dealing with major works on public service in the literature included summaries of two books, three major university studies and six recent doctoral dissertations. Crosson's 1983 book contained the most comprehensive overview of the subject. In order to establish public service in context, she began by examining higher education as ivory tower, social service station and culture mart. The main body of the book was devoted to public service in terms of its three most common recipients: 1) communities, 2) state and local governments, and 3) business and industry. While acknowledging that all types of colleges and universities provide service to each of the three groups, she argued that community colleges most often provided service to communities, state colleges and universities most often provided service to state and local governments, and research universities were most likely to be involved in service to business and industry. Warren B. Martin edited the second book, a volume in the Jossey-Bass New Directions in Higher Education series, entitled Redefining Service. Research and Teaching. He admitted that public service has been poorly conceptualized in the literature. Long, the author of one of the chapters in this volume, agreed that public service needed to have a more precise operational 82 definition and went on to argue that it must not be divorced from its essential connection to instruction and research. The three case studies conducted in recent years highlighted different aspects of public service. While the University of California System study dealt with motivational factors for faculty participation in public service, the University of Minnesota study reported faculty opinions toward public service. The third study focused on five state colleges in Ohio and studied attitudes of faculty members toward university-sponsored service programs. The doctoral dissertations reviewed also focused on different aspects of public service. One studied the role of public service in institutional mission, while a second one reported the degree of faculty involvement in service activities. Several of the dissertations were specific to Michigan State University. Service in Workload Expectations The fourth section dealt with the role of public service in faculty workload expectations. Because this subject is inextricably linked to the purpose and mission of higher education, a discussion of the larger issue was presented first. There was general agreement in the literature that the mission of higher education was threefold: the creation or discovery of knowledge, its 83 dissemination and practical application. These three purposes have traditionally been manifested in research, teaching and public service. Studies of faculty workload revealed that while public service is extolled as an important component of the mission of higher education, little time has been devoted to it and little importance attached to its performance. Different authors included different activities in the public service category, ranging from service on departmental committees to lobbying the government. There was considerable discussion in the literature on paid consulting and whether or not it should be given credit toward a faculty member's public service. Most authors agreed that, while current policies regarding consulting were piecemeal at best, paid consulting should not count toward fulfillment of a faculty member's public service responsibilities. Several authors took the opposite stance, however, and argued that it should count. Evaluation and Reward The fifth and final section of the chapter focused on the evaluation of and reward for service. While several authors offered sample evaluation scales, only Dressel presented the need for creation of objectives in service activities, then a systematic evaluation of how 84 well those objectives were met. The quality vs. quantity issue was also raised in the literature. This section concluded with an examination of the reward for service activities. There was almost universal agreement in the literature that public service was not sufficiently rewarded to warrant spending much time on it. Despite the evidence that public service was not adequately rewarded, several authors believed that this should not be the case and made an argument for improvement of the reward structure. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction This research was undertaken in order to develop an understanding of the service component of the institutional mission of Michigan State University, a land-grant institution. The study employed descriptive, relational, analytical and definitional research questions to accomplish that purpose. 1) It was designed: to describe the extent of involvement of MSU faculty and academic staff members in public and community service activities, both personally and with/for students; and to describe their perception of the importance of such involvement as professional activities for themselves and as learning opportunities for their students; 2) to identify relationships between described behaviors and perceptions which may have an effect on the achievement of service goals of MSU's institutional mission; 3) to analyze those relationships in order to (a) develop recommendations which may be useable for 85 86 enhancing achievement of institutional and faculty service goals, and (b) aid in the generation of hypotheses which then could be tested in further research; and 4) to develop an operational definition of service for Michigan State University. A total of 12 research questions were generated to address the descriptive, relational and analytical components of this study. 1. They were as follows: To what extent are MSU faculty and academic staff members involved in public and community service? 2. To what extent do MSU faculty and academic staff members consider public and community service important as professional activities? 3. To what extent are MSU faculty and academic staff members involved with students in service-related activities? In other words, if faculty and academic staff members consider public and community service involvement important for themselves, does that consideration translate into involvement with and support for students in service-related activities? 4. To what extent do faculty and academic staff members consider service-related activities to be important as learning opportunities for students? 5. Are there institutional practices which may have an effect upon faculty and academic staff members' 87 participation in public and community service? 6. What relationship exists between faculty and academic staff members' extent of involvement in public and community service and their perception of the importance of such service as professional activities for themselves? 7. What relationship exists between faculty and academic staff members' extent of involvement with students in service-related activities and their perception of the importance of such activities as learning opportunities for students? 8. What relationship exists between extent of involvement of faculty and academic staff members in public and community service activities and the extent of their involvement with and/or for students in servicerelated activities? 9. What relationship exists between faculty and academic staff members' perception of the importance of professional public and community service activities and their perception of the importance of service-related activities with and/or for students? 10. What relationship exists between institutional practices and extent of faculty and academic staff members' involvement in professional public and community service activities and their perception of its importance as a professional activity? 88 11. Are there any additional relationships which emerge from analysis of findings of this study? 12. What patterns, if any, can be identified which may prove useful in developing recommendations to enhance achievement of service goals or in generating hypotheses for testing in further research? The definitional component of this study was to be achieved by soliciting responses to an open-ended question regarding specific examples of recent public and community service activities. These questions shaped the methodology and instrumentation of the project. Instrumentation The investigator developed a first draft of the survey instrument, drawing from a questionnaire utilized by the MSU Council to Review Undergraduate Education in 1987. A recent survey conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles for the national Campus Compact office was also consulted, as well as definitional statements developed by the National Society for Internships and Experiential Education (NSIEE) in the early 1980's. Several key MSU faculty members with an interest in this subject were asked to evaluate the content and structure of the first draft of the survey instrument. 89 They suggested refinements and changes which resulted in a number of additional drafts and subsequent revisions. Suggestions for format and content changes were also solicited from key individuals in the Michigan State University administration, including the Executive Assistant to the President and the Assistant Director of the Office of Planning and Budgets. The final format and content of the instrument were the responsibility of the investigator and were completed during the summer of 1988. The research instrument was set in a format and printed so that responses could be machine scored. After a brief introductory statement explaining the purpose of the survey and directions for its completion, the instrument consisted of 15 questions and was divided into five sections (see Appendix A): Section I: Background Information. Included here were five questions soliciting demographic information which would be used to interpret responses from the other four sections of the survey. indicate: Respondents were asked to 1) the longevity of their appointment at MSU, 2) whether their appointment was full-time or part-time, 3) the type of appointment they held, i.e. tenured, 4) their academic rank and, finally, 5) their college/unit affiliation. 90 Section II: Professional Public and Community Service Activities. This section consisted of twelve examples of public and community service activities, plus a blank space where respondents could present an example they felt should have been included. The respondents were asked to assess two things in this section: 1) the extent of their personal involvement in each activity, and 2) their perception of its importance as a professional activity. A three- point scale was used, ranging from a great extent of involvement or importance (3) to no involvement or not important at all (0). In addition, several questions were included to assess respondents' degree of satisfaction with their involvement in service activities as well as reasons for choosing to be involved or not to be involved in such activities. Section III: Service-Related Activities as Learning Opportunities for Students. In this section, respondents were given examples of ten student activities which could be considered service-related. Once again, they were asked to assess their extent of involvement, either for and/or with students in the particular activities described. Secondly, respondents were asked how important they perceived each activity to be as a learning opportunity for students. A three-point scale was used in this section as well, ranging from a great 91 extent of involvement or importance (3) to no involvement or not important at all (0). A blank space was also included at the end so that respondents could provide an example they believed should have been included. Several related questions were included in this section as well. The first dealt with the number of students a faculty member assisted in service-related activities in a typical year, ranging from none to 100 or more. Whether those students were primarily graduate or undergraduate was addressed in the next question. The final two questions dealt with respondents' opinions about the number of hours students should be permitted to earn through service-related activities which would count toward a degree. Section IV: Institutional Practices Which Affect Participation in Public and Community Service Activities. This section included eight statements about university practices which served as examples of institutional support for public service activities, such as reduced courseload/workload, financial compensation or recognition by the department/unit chairperson. Space was made available for respondents to provide an example which they felt should have been included. A three-point scale was also used in this section, with responses ranging from "(3) this is often the case" to "(0) this is never the case." 92 Section V: Specific Examples of Public and Community Service Activities. The final question was open-ended, allowing respondents to describe specific examples of public and community service activities in which they had recently been engaged, both personally and with and/or for students. was two-fold: The purpose of this section 1) to validate that respondents indeed understood what was meant by public and community service, and 2) to solicit specific examples of public and community service involvement by faculty and academic staff members outside the immediate university environment. Permission to proceed with the research was granted by the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) on July 11, 1988. The instrument was then pilot tested in late July, using twenty faculty and academic staff members who were members of the Career Planning and Placement Council as a fairly representative group of the population to be studied. Further refinements in the instrument were made as a result of the pilot test. Population and Sample A decision was made by the investigator to use the entire population for this study rather than draw a representative sample from that group. Several reasons 93 prompted this decision: (1) because the investigator desired the broadest possible representation of Michigan State University faculty and academic staff in the results from this study, and (2) the relative ease of accessibility to the population in question. The MSU Office of Academic Personnel Records was contacted and subsequently provided the investigator with name and address labels for the entire faculty and academic staff population, as of September 10, 1988. Identical sets of labels were used for distribution of the advance letter, the survey and the follow-up letter. Labels were sorted by college/unit affiliation, then alphabetically by department within each college/unit. This process yielded an N of 3,531, of which 2,461 were faculty and 1,070 were academic staff members. Data Collection Procedures On September 12, 1988, an advance letter over the signature of the President was sent to all of the identified members of the population. There were 3,187 letters delivered via campus mail to on-campus subjects. An additional 344 were delivered via first-class mail to members of the population with off-campus addresses, primarily Cooperative Extension agents. These letters explained the purpose of the research, why the recipients had been selected to participate, and solicited their 94 involvement. It also advised the recipients that the research instrument would be coming to them in approximately one month (see Appendix B). The survey instrument was sent with a cover letter over the signature of the President during the week of October 10, 1988 (see Appendix C). Along with the survey and cover letter, a return envelope for the survey was provided, including postage for those off-campus. In addition, a separate return postal card was included which had a label affixed that indicated the subject's name and address (see Appendix D ) . The cover letter gave instructions for respondents to return the postal card after having completed and mailed the survey instrument. When the cards were returned, those persons' names were pulled from the list of subjects who should receive a follow-up mailing. There was also a place on the return postal cards for the respondents to indicate whether or not they wanted to receive a summary of the survey results. The purpose of including the separate postal card was to maintain the anonymity of respondents, as required by the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects. A follow-up letter dated October 24, 1988, over the signature of the Executive Assistant to the President, was sent approximately two weeks after the initial mailing to all subjects who had not yet returned their 95 postal cards. It was assumed that all those who had returned their postal cards had completed and returned the survey (see Appendix E). Of the initial 3,531 instruments sent to the entire population of faculty and academic staff, a total of 2,005 of the surveys were returned. Of these, 1,980 were useable, yielding a response rate of 56%. The total number of respondents was examined in order to determine their representativeness of the overall population on each of the independent variables. Representativeness was determined by matching the distribution of the respondent pool with the distribution of the total population on "those characteristics that [were] relevant to the substantive interests of the study" (Babbie, 1973, p. 78). The Office of Academic Personnel Records was able to provide the investigator with data on the distribution of the entire population on four of the five independent variables: (1) full-time/part-time status, (2) type of appointment, (3) academic rank, and (4) college/unit affiliation. These figures were computed as of October 1, 1988, the closest available to the actual figures used on September 10, 1988. They were unable, however, to provide the investigator with a distribution on the longevity variable. A comparison of the respondents to the total population will be presented in Chapter IV. 96 Procedure for Data Analysis Data analysis was conducted by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X), after the 1,980 useable returns were machine scored to yield raw data. Preliminary results were obtained by computing frequencies, cross-tabulations, means and standard deviations. Because "statistical power increases automatically with sample size," and the N in this study was 1,980, the level of significance was set at .01 (Borg and Gall, 1983, p. 378). Because it was desired to determine what relationship existed between a number of pairs of responses, correlation coefficients were calculated, to "express in mathematical terms the degree of relationship between . . . two variables" (Borg and Gall, 1983, p. 573). This was the most appropriate statistical procedure because a coefficient of correlation is a statistical summary of the degree and direction of relationship or association between two variables . . . Correlation coefficients allow us to compare the strength and direction of association between different pairs of variables (Glass and Hopkins, 1984, pp. 79-80). It was possible to calculate correlation coefficients because the numbers generated in this study were treated as interval level data, a necessary 97 prerequisite (Nie, 1975, p. 276). Spearman's rank correlations were also used in analyzing results by college/unit affiliation because not only was the data measured on an interval scale but they were easily converted to rank scores (Hinkle, Wiersma and Jurs, 1979, p. 103). Because it was also desired to discover the effect of the four relevant independent variables on a number of dependent variables, analysis of variance techniques were employed (Nie, 1975, p. 399). Analysis of variance is the statistical procedure "used to determine whether the differences among two or more means are greater than would be expected by sampling error alone" (Glass and Hopkins, 1984, p. 324). Before proceeding with analyses of variance, however, several changes in college/unit affiliation distributions were necessary. First, the Cyclotron category was integrated with the College of Natural Science. This was deemed appropriate for several reasons: (1) because of the natural affinity of subject matter, (2) the relatively small size of the category in comparison with college categories, and (3) because the majority in the Cyclotron category had faculty status rather than academic staff status. Secondly, Intercollegiate Athletics, Lifelong Education, Research/Graduate Studies, and Student Affairs 98 and Services were clustered and labeled "Other." These changes were deemed appropriate for several reasons: 1) because of the smaller size of these non­ college units which could create difficulty with empty cells during subsequent statistical manipulations, and (2) because these units consisted primarily of academic staff rather than faculty. Summary This chapter contained a comprehensive overview of the methodology used in this study. The development of the survey instrument, method of data collection, and response rate were described. The methods of analyses used in computing the data were also included. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS Introduction The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of the public service component of the institutional mission of Michigan State University, a land-grant institution. To achieve this purpose, this study of the public and community service activities of Michigan State University faculty and academic staff members was conducted during Fall Term, 1988. The study was designed to accomplish four goals: (1) To describe the extent of involvement of MSU faculty and academic staff members in public and community service activities, both personally and with/for students. Five research questions were developed for this purpose. (2) To identify relationships between described behaviors and perceptions which may have an effect upon the achievement of the service component of MSU/s institutional mission. Five research questions were developed for this purpose. (3) To analyze those relationships (mentioned above) 99 100 in order to (a) develop recommendations which may be useable for enhancing achievement of institutional and faculty service goals, and (b) aid in the generation of hypotheses which then could be tested in further research. Two research questions were developed for this purpose. (4) To develop an operational definition of service for Michigan State University. An open-ended question was included in the research instrument asking for examples of respondents' recent service involvement. It was hoped that responses to this optional question would yield an understanding of what MSU faculty and academic staff members consider to be service activities. After the research questions had been developed, they were transformed into a survey instrument (see Appendix A). The survey instrument was refined and pilot-tested during the 1987-88 academic year, and was administered to the entire population of 3,531 faculty and academic staff members at Michigan State University during early October, 1988. A follow-up questionnaire was mailed approximately two weeks later. Of the 3,531 survey instruments distributed, 2,005 were returned, of which 1,980 were useable, for a 56% return rate. 101 Distribution of Respondents The distribution of respondents was compared with the distribution of the population in order to determine representativeness on four of the five independent variables: (1) full-time or part-time status, (2) type of appointment, (3) academic rank, and (4) college/unit affiliation. It was not possible to determine representativeness of the respondents on the fifth independent variable, number of years at MSU, because information regarding that variable for the overall population was not available from the Office of Academic Personnel Records. (All population figures for Table 1 were based on statistics from the Office of Academic Personnel Records as of October 31, 1988, the nearest date to when the study was conducted and for which figures were available.) Distribution of the population on the full-time or part-time variable proved to be nearly identical to the distribution of the respondents (see Table 1). The extremely high percentage of full-time people represented in both respondents and population meant that this variable was irrelevant for the purposes of this study. Therefore, it was dropped from further consideration. When the type of appointment variable was examined, however, it was revealed that tenured faculty were substantially over-represented as respondents. 102 Table 1 Distribution of Respondents by Full-Time/Part-Time Status, Appointment Type and Academic Rank Variable Number in Population* FULL-TIME/PART-TIME STATUS Full-time 3,816 Part-time 174 APPOINTMENT TYPE Already tenured 1,780 In tenure stream, not yet tenured 336 Not tenure stream 592 Specialist with job security 611 Specialist w/out job security 671 ACADEMIC RANK 1,243 Professor Assoc. Prof. 635 Ass't. Prof. 604 Instructor 226 Specialist 867 Other 415 % Number of Respondents** % 95.6 4.4 1,875 88 95.5 4.5 44.6 1,176 60.7 8.4 14.8 252 265 13.0 13.7 15.3 113 5.7 16.8 132 6.8 31.2 15.9 15.1 5.7 21.7 10.4 756 367 302 59 188 254 39.2 19.1 15.7 3.1 9.8 13.1 *Total population based on 3,990 cases, as of 10/31/88 **Totals based on number of valid cases in each variable. Both continuing and temporary academic staff members (specialists) were substantially under-represented. Specialists, once again, were substantially under­ represented. Likewise, full professors were somewhat over-represented and associate professors slightly over­ represented. These patterns meant that responses to the survey questions would be somewhat more representative of the activities and perceptions of tenured faculty in the higher academic ranks than of academic staff members, whether or not they had job security (tenure). 103 Table 2 Distribution of Respondents by College/Unit Affiliation College/Unit Number in Population* Agriculture Arts & Letters Business Comm. Arts Education Engineering Human Ecology Human Medicine James Madison Natural Science Nursing Osteopathic Med. Social Science Veterinary Med. Urban Affairs Co-op. Extension Cyclotron Intercol. Athletics Lifelong Education Provost/Library Other % 11.1 9.9 4.4 2.4 5.1 4.5 2.5 8.2 .7 14.1 1.2 4.9 7.4 4.4 .5 9.4 1.3 1.0 .6 2.6 3.8 392 350 155 87 181 161 83 289 25 497 42 172 261 157 18 331 47 34 21 93 135 Number of Respondents** % 281 177 95 57 105 89 58 153 12 228 24 90 159 84 10 179 21 16 15 55 75 14.2 8.9 4.8 2.9 5.3 4.5 2.9 7.7 .6 11.5 1.2 4.5 8.0 4.2 .5 9.0 1.1 .8 .8 2.8 3.1 *Total population based on 3,531 cases. **Total respondents based on 1,980 valid cases. The response rate by college/unit affiliation was remarkably representative of the overall population (see Table 2). In this table, the total population was based on the 3,531 faculty and academic staff members solicited to participate in the study. The percentage of respondents in each college/unit was accurately representative of the percentage of the total population in each college/unit. In every case except two, these figures were within one percentage point of each other. 104 The College of Agriculture was very slightly over­ represented, while the College of Natural Science was very slightly under-represented. This finding meant that all responses to the survey that were reported by college/unit affiliation closely represented the responses which would have been expected had the entire population responded. Results of Descriptive Questions Data analysis for the descriptive questions was conducted by applying the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X). Results were obtained by computing frequencies, cross-tabulations, and simple statistics including means and standard deviations. Analysis of variance also was employed because it was considered appropriate to "determine whether the dif f*are»nr!*»s amnna two or more means Fwerel areater than would be expected by sampling error alone" (Glass and Hopkins, 1984, p. 324). In order to fulfill the descriptive component of this study, five research questions were generated to provide information about faculty and academic staff members' participation in public and community service activities. Their perception of its importance as a professional activity for themselves and as a learning opportunity for students was also explored. 1. To what extent are MSU faculty and academic staff members involved in public and community service? Analysis of results in the first column of question six on the survey instrument revealed that involvement in public and community service was fairly widespread among responding faculty and academic staff members (see Appendix A). Of the 1,980 useable responses, only 85 or 4.3% explicitly stated that they were not involved in public and community service, or failed to list any such involvement. Overall Scales When examined by each of the four independent variables, the overall mean was slightly higher than 11 points on a 39 point scale (see Table 3). Those who had been at MSU for 11 to 15 years and were already tenured at the professor or associate professor level scored higher than the overall mean. Those who were just beginning at MSU, not yet tenured or not in the tenure stream, and at the instructor or assistant professor rank, scored several points lower than the overall mean. Respondents in the Cooperative Extension unit exhibited the highest extent of involvement, with a mean approximately three points higher than the overall mean. Also several points above the overall mean were those in 106 Table 3 Overall Heans on Extent of Involvement Scale for Professional Public and Community Service by Independent Variable Variable LONGEVITY AT MSU Just Beginning I to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years II to 15 Years 16 or More Years For Entire Population APPOINTMENT TYPE Already Tenured Tenure Stream, Not Ten. Not Tenure Stream Specialist W/Security Specialist No Security For Entire Population ACADEMIC RANK Professor Assoc. Professor Ass.t. Professor Instructor Specialist Other For Entire Population COLLEGE/UNIT Agriculture Arts and Letters Business Comm. Arts & Sciences Education Engineering Human Ecology Human Medicine Natural Science Osteopathic Medicine Social Science Veterinary Medicine Other Colleges Cooperative Extension Provost/Library Other For Entire Population Mean St.Dev. Extent of Involvement 7.25 10.07 11.88 12.71 12.02 11.29 6.50 6.37 6.00 6.43 6.55 none low low low low low 12.30 9.76 9.60 10.83 9.40 11.31 6.33 6.45 6.42 6.75 7.00 6.54 low low none low none low 12.17 12.03 9.51 8.54 10.16 1.0.,.77 11.23 6.34 6.46 6.09 6.44 6.93 6-73. 6.52 low low none none low low low 12.46 10.74 11.20 11.32 13.43 10.95 13.54 11.03 7.74 11.10 11.32 10.13 12.84 14.09 7.83 12.18 11.29 6.28 6.91 6.61 5.92 6.26 6.60 6.29 5.92 5.77 5.78 7.05 6.57 6.36 5.68 5.03 7-17 6.53 low low low low low low low low none low low low low low none low low * 0.00-9.75=no involvement; 9.76-19.50=low extent of involvement; 19.51-29.25=moderate extent of involvement; 29.26-39.00=high extent of involvement. 107 the College of Human Ecology, College of Education, "Other Colleges" (which included James Madison, Nursing and Urban Affairs clustered together), and the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The College of Natural Science and Provost/Library categories revealed a lower extent of involvement, with means approximately 2.5 points lower than the next lowest category, Veterinary Medicine, and 3.5 points lower than the overall mean. These findings would seem to indicate that those in the traditional land-grant colleges and units (with the exception of Veterinary Medicine) and those whose subject matter was more "service oriented" tended to be more involved in public and community service than their counterparts in other colleges. The analysis of variance for the overall scale revealed that the amount of variation which was explained by all four of the independent variables was 13.88% of the total (see Appendix F ) . College/unit affiliation had by far the strongest effect of any of the independent variables. Appointment type had the least effect. These findings meant that, while the independent variables did have some small effect on the extent of involvement in public and community service, fully five-sixths of the extent of involvement was determined by other, unknown factors. 108 Individual Items and Subscales There were 13 individual items in Section II of the survey instrument, each scored on a three point scale (see Table 4). Those which displayed a relatively high extent of involvement included, in descending order, MSU committee work, involvement in professional organizations, on-going work with public organizations, and involvement in civic organizations. This meant that, in general, faculty and academic staff members tended to be more involved in service activities which benefited the institution, their profession or the community. When faculty and academic staff members became involved in other service activities, it tended to be with public organizations rather than private ones, and they were more likely to do so as part of their workload than as independent consultants. Some noticeable exceptions to the overall general pattern emerged when the individual items and sub-scales were analyzed by college/unit. The College of Business ranked highest on the item for consulting in private organizations, with a mean of 2.33 on the three point scale compared with the overall mean of 1.38 for that item. Cooperative Extension was highest on the item for consulting in public organizations as part of workload, with a mean of 2.11 compared with an overall mean of 1.28 on that item. 109 Table 4 Individual Item and Subscale Means on Extent of Involvement Scale for Professional Public and Community Service by Independent Variable Item/Subscale Long. Appt. Type Acad. Rank Col/ Unit Workload,one-shot,private Workload ingoing, private Workload,one-shot, public Workload, ongoing, public MSU committee work Professional organizations Consulting,one-shot,private Consulting,ongoing, private Consulting,one-shot, public Consulting, ongoing, public Civic organizations Community betterment Other (fill in) .76 .76 1.14 1.29 1.84 1.55 .52 .41 .52 .47 1.22 1.06 — ——— .76 .76 1.14 1.29 1.85 1.55 .52 .41 .52 .47 1.22 1.06 “— —■» .75 .75 1.13 1.28 1.85 1.55 .52 .41 .52 .47 1.21 1.05 — ——— .75 .75 1.14 1.29 1.84 1.55 .52 .41 .51 .47 1.22 1.06 * 0.00-0.75=no involvement; 0.76-1 .50=low extent of involvement ? 1.51-2.25=moderate extent of involvement; 2.26-3.00=high extent of involvement. Private only subscale Public only subscale One-shot only subscale Ongoing only subscale As part of workload subscale Consulting subscale 2.38 3.33 2.86 2.86 3.86 1.89 2.39 3.33 2.87 2.87 3.87 1.90 2.37 3.31 2.85 2.84 3.83 1.89 2.37 3.33 2.86 2.86 3.86 1.89 * 0.00-3.00=no involvement? 3.01-6.00=low extent of involvement; 6.01-9.00=moderate extent of involvement; 9.01-12.00=high extent of involvement. 110 Analysis of subscales within this section revealed that service for public organizations was more common than service for private ones and one-shot and ongoing projects were equally common. Service activities normally considered part of workload were more than twice as common as consulting. When analysis of variance was conducted on individual items and subscales, the variation on several was found to be higher than the overall variation of 13.88% (see Appendix F). The greater variation found meant that extent of involvement in these particular activities could be attributed slightly more directly to the independent variables. MSU committees had a variation of 20.58% and ongoing service activities with public organizations as part of workload had a variation of 14.32%. The subscale for projects as part of workload showed 14.73% of the variation explained by the independent variables. On each item and subscale, college/unit affiliation had by far the strongest influence of the four independent variables (see Appendix F). Auxiliary Questions Section II of the survey instrument contained several auxiliary questions related to participation in professional public and community service activities. Question seven asked about faculty and academic staff Ill members' satisfaction with their extent of involvement in public and community service (see Appendix A). Two- thirds (66%) of the respondents said that they were satisfied with their level of participation in service activities. An additional 30% said they would like to be more involved in service activities. Only those who were not actively involved in public and community service activities were asked to respond to question eight, regarding reasons for non-involvement. Of those who responded to this question, 60% reported a workload that was too heavy to allow for more involvement, 39% faulted the lack of consideration of service activities in tenure/promotion decisions, 27% found no relevant projects at the present time and 11% had no interest in public and community service involvement. 2. To what extent do MSU faculty and academic staff consider public and community service important as professional activities? Faculty and academic staff members indicated their perceptions of the importance of public and community service in the second column of question six on the survey instrument (see Appendix A). 112 Overall Scales The overall means by independent variable were nearly 17 points on a 39 point scale (see Table 5). When analyzed by longevity, appointment type and academic rank, category means were tightly clustered. Little more than one point separated the highest and lowest means for each independent variable. Respondents who had been at MSU from 11 to 15 years, were already tenured and at the assistant professor, associate professor or professor rank gave slightly higher responses in this section. When results were analyzed by college/unit affiliation, there was found to be a greater degree of spread between highest and lowest means than there had been using the other three independent variables. The College of Human Ecology was the only college/unit to reach the "moderate" level of importance range. It was followed in descending order by "Other Colleges" (James Madison, Nursing and Urban Affairs clustered), the College of Education, and "Other" (composed of respondents whose appointments were outside colleges). These findings meant that the faculty and academic staff members in those colleges/units perceived service activities as somewhat more important than did their colleagues in, for example, the College of Natural Science or the Provost/Library category. 113 Table 5 Overall Means on Perception of Importance Scale for Professional Public and Community Service by Independent Variable Variable LONGEVITY AT MSU Just Beginning 1 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 or More Years For Entire Population APPOINTMENT TYPE Already Tenured Tenure Stream, Not Ten. Not Tenure Stream Specialist W/Security Specialist No Security For Entire Population ACADEMIC RANK Professor Assoc. Professor Ass't. Professor Instructor Specialist Other For Entire Population COLLEGE/UNIT Agriculture & Nat.Res. Arts and Letters Business Comm. Arts & Sciences Education Engineering Human Ecology Human Medicine Natural Science Osteopathic Medicine Social Science Veterinary Medicine Other Colleges Cooperative Extension Provost/Library Other For Entire Population Mean* St.Dev. Level of Importanc 16.81 16.70 16.30 17.89 16.82 16.87 7.13 7.03 6.48 7.05 7.22 7.03 low low low low low low 17.06 16.74 16.71 16.33 16.20 16.87 6.97 7.46 6.67 7.23 7.31 7.03 low low low low low low 16.94 16.99 16.89 16.20 16.25 1<5t78 16.83 7.12 7.02 7.15 6.28 7.47 8 159 7.05 low low low low low low low 17.51 15.74 15.97 17.33 18.88 16.47 19.60 16.67 13.90 17.28 17.71 17.01 19.33 17.77 14.24 18-54 16.85 6.31 7.56 6.64 6.04 6.76 7.05 7.88 5.98 6.99 7.23 8.18 6.51 6.50 5.91 7.97 7.23 7.03 low low low low low low moderate low low low low low low low low low low * 0.00-9.75=not important at all; 9.76-19.50 low level of importance; 19.51-29.25=moderate level of importance; 29.26-39.00=high level of importance. 114 Analysis of variance calculated in this section revealed that the amount of variation in responses which could be accounted for by the four independent variables was 5.73% of the total (see Appendix F). This finding meant that slightly more than 94% of faculty and academic staff members' perception of the importance of service activities could be explained by other, unknown variables. Once again, college/unit affiliation had by far the strongest effect on responses of any of the four independent variables. Individual .Items and Subscales When individual item and subscale means were considered, respondents indicated that service in professional organizations was most important, followed in descending order by service on MSU committees and both one-shot and ongoing projects with public organizations (see Table 6). Service as a part of workload was perceived to be the most important of the identified subscales. When analysis of variance was calculated for individual items, several were found to have a slightly higher variation than the 5.73% which had been found overall (see Appendix F ). These included ongoing projects with public organizations as a part of workload in which 9.90% of the variation could be attributed to the independent variables. Initiatives for betterment of 115 Table 6 Individual Item and Subscale Means on Perception of Importance Scale for Professional Public and Community Service by Independent Variable Item/Subscale Long. Appt. Type Acad. Rank Col/ Unit Workload,one-shot,private Workload,ongoing, private Workload,one-shot, public Workload, ongoing, public MSU committee work Professional organizations Consulting,one-shot,private Consulting,ongoing, private Consulting,one-shot, public Consulting, ongoing, public Civic organizations Community betterment Other (fill in) 1.24 1.25 1.76 1.91 2.03 2.05 .94 .87 1.05 1.05 1.67 1.69 —— — 1.24 1.25 1.76 1.91 2.03 2.05 .95 .87 1.05 1.05 1.67 1.69 ~~ — 1.23 1.25 1.76 1.91 2.03 2.05 .95 .87 1.05 1.06 1.66 1.69 ———— 1.23 1.25 1.77 1.91 2.03 2.05 .94 .87 1.05 1.05 1.67 1.69 — —— “ — — * 0.00-0.75=not important at all; 0.76-1 .50=low level importance; 1.51-2.25=moderate level of importance; 2.26-3.00=high level of importance • Private only subscale Public only subscale One-shot only subscale Ongoing only subscale As prt of workload subscale Consulting subscale 4.16 5.60 4.84 4.92 6.01 3.85 4.16 5.61 4.85 4.93 6.01 3.86 4.16 5.61 4.85 4.92 6.00 3.87 4.15 5.61 4.85 4.91 6.01 3.85 * 0.00-3.00=not important at all? 3.01-6.00=low level of importance; 6.01-9.00=moderate level of importance; 9.01-12.00=high level of importance. 116 the community had the next highest percentage of the variation explained, at 7.56%. The lowest amount of variation which could be attributed to the four independent variables was on the item for service on MSU committees, at 2.74%. Analysis of variance by subscales revealed that slightly more of the variation on perception of importance of service to public organizations (6.24%) could be attributed to the four independent variables than the perception of importance of service to private ones (4.34%). The amount of variation for perception of importance of ongoing programs (6.40%) was slightly higher than for one-shot projects (3.99%). Finally, the amount of variation which could be attributed to the four independent variables for projects as a part of workload and those that were consulting were approximately equivalent, with 6.57% and 6.35% respectively. 3. To what extent are MSU faculty and academic staff involved with students in service-related activities? Analysis of responses in the first column of question nine on the survey instrument revealed that faculty involvement in service-related activities with students was evidenced, but not nearly to the extent of professional service involvement (see Appendix A). 117 Overall Scales The overall means by independent variable in this section were nearly seven points on a 33 point scale (see Table 7). Respondents who were at the associate professor level, either with tenure or seeking it, and had been at MSU from 11 to 15 years were the most likely to be involved in service-related activities either with or for students. Individual college/unit means were widely scattered, ranging from a high of 10.31 for the College of Education to a low of 2.71 for the Provost/Library category. A respondent in the College of Education was almost twice as likely to be involved with students in service-related activities as a faculty or academic staff member in the College of Engineering and almost four times as likely to be involved in service-related activities with students as a librarian. Analysis of variance using all four independent variables revealed that the amount of variation in respondents' involvement in service-related activities with students which could be explained by the four independent variables was 10.61% (see Appendix F). This finding meant that nearly 90% of the extent of involvement could be explained by other, unknown factors. Once again, college/unit affiliation had by far the strongest effect of any of the independent variables. 118 Table 7 Overall Heans on Extent of Involvement Scale for Service-Related Activities With Students by Independent Variable Variable Mean* LONGEVITY AT MSU Just Beginning 5.74 1 to 5 Years 6.72 6 to 10 Years 7.46 11 to 15 Years 7.86 16 or More Years 6.82 For Entire Population 6.98 APPOINTMENT TYPE Already Tenured 7.47 Tenure Stream, Not Ten. 7.10 Not Tenure Stream 6.62 Specialist/W Security 5.09 Specialist No Security 5.67 For Entire Population 7.05 ACADEMIC RANK Professor 7.47 Assoc. Professor 8.34 Ass.t. Professor 7.88 Instructor 7.61 Specialist 5.52 Other 3 f58 For Entire Population 7.04 COLLEGE/UNIT Agriculture & Nat. Res. 7.44 Arts and Letters 7.40 Business 6.05 Comm. Arts & Sciences 9.88 Education 10.31 Engineering 5.51 Human Ecology 9.07 Human Medicine 8.00 Natural Science 5.09 Osteopathic Medicine 8.01 Social Science 7.57 Veterinary Medicine 9.30 Other Colleges 8.33 Cooperative Extension 3.79 Provost/Library 2.71 Other 6.73 For Entire Population 6.98 St.Dev. Extent of Involve] 5.74 5.77 6.00 6.63 6.14 6.09 none none none none none none 6.16 5.89 5.99 5.65 5.79 6.08 none none none none none none 6.13 6.03 6.01 6.59 5.83 4 T79 6.10 none low none none none none none 6.13 6.35 5.71 5.92 6.35 4.86 6.33 6.36 4.89 5.64 6.01 6.22 5.14 4.59 4.99 7 f33 6.09 none none none low low none low none none none none low low none none none none * 0.00-8.25=no involvement; 8.26-16.50=low extent of involvement; 16.51-24.75=moderate extent of involvement; 24.76-33.00=high extent of involvement. 119 Table 8 Individual Item Means on Extent of Involvement Scale for Service-Related Activities With Students by Independent Variable Item Long. Appt. Type Acad . Rank Col/ Unit Field Study Internship Practicum Independent Study Course Modification Clinical Experience Cross-cultural Experience Service Learning Co-op Education Career or Service Club Other (fill in) .91 .88 .71 1.13 .70 .66 .55 .72 .34 .57 .92 .89 .71 1.14 .71 .66 .56 .73 .34 .58 .91 .88 .71 1.15 .71 .66 .55 .73 .33 .58 .91 .88 .71 1.13 .70 .66 .55 .73 .34 .57 ------- ------- --- — — — * 0.00-0.75=no involvement; 0.76-1. 50=low extent of involvement; 1.51-2.25=moderate extent of involvement; 2.26-3.00=high extent of involvement. Individual Items Examination of responses to the individual items revealed several patterns (see Table 8). A somewhat higher extent of involvement was found in the more "traditional" activities: independent study, field study, internship and practicum. Service learning and course modifications, however, were almost equally as frequent as practica. Analysis of variance by individual item revealed that there were two items where a percentage of the variation explained was larger than the 10.61% found overall (see Appendix F). These were the item on independent study, in which 15.36% of the variation could 120 be explained by the independent variables, and the clinical experience item, where the variation was 27.70%. 4. To what extent do faculty and academic staff members consider service-related activities important as learning opportunities for students? Responses recorded in the second column of question nine of the survey instrument showed that faculty and academic staff members perceived service-related activities for students as quite important (see Appendix A). Overall Scales The overall means in this section were nearly 17 points on a 33 point scale, in the "moderate" level of importance range (see Table 9). In general, those who were fairly new to MSU and in the temporary faculty or temporary specialists ranks perceived involvement with students in service-related activities as more important that did their colleagues who had been at MSU longer and were already tenured or had job security. The overall means found when results were analyzed by college/unit affiliation yielded the widest range of means, with the average at 16.77 points. Respondents whose appointments were in the traditional land-grant colleges (with the exception of Veterinary Medicine) and in the colleges/units whose subject matter was amenable 121 Table 9 Overall Means on Perception of Importance Scale for Service-Related Activities With Students by Independent Variable Variable LONGEVITY AT MSU Just Beginning 1 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 or More Years For Entire Population APPOINTMENT TYPE Already Tenured Tenure Stream, Not Ten. Not Tenure Stream Specialist W/Security Specialist No Security For Entire Population ACADEMIC RANK Professor Assoc. Professor Ass't. Professor Instructor Specialist Other For Entire Population COLLEGE/UNIT Agriculture & Nat. Res. Arts and Letters Business Comm. Arts & Sciences Education Engineering Human Ecology Human Medicine Natural Science Osteopathic Medicine Social Science Veterinary Medicine Other Colleges Cooperative Extension Provost/Library Other For Entire Population Mean* St.Dev. Level of Important 19.51 17.48 16.38 17.31 15.85 16.79 7.29 7.98 8.41 7.98 3,26 8.17 moderate moderate low moderate low moderate 16.20 17.56 17.31 16.67 19.90 16.80 8.01 7.56 8.29 9.52 8.IX 8.14 low moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate 16.00 16.89 18.33 16.51 18.56 16, Q7 16.82 7.80 7.73 7.32 8.35 9.02 9 t 5? 8.13 low moderate moderate moderate moderate low moderate 18.05 17.38 12.28 18.23 19.62 13.33 20.75 17.16 14.03 16.62 17.90 17.14 18.70 16.22 14.80 l.S_,..0Z 16.77 7.21 7.93 8.15 6.79 7.07 6.90 7.88 7.89 8.19 8.23 7.48 6.49 7.27 9.34 10.51 9-74 8.17 moderate moderate low moderate moderate low moderate moderate low moderate moderate moderate moderate low low moderate moderate * 0.00-8.25=not important at all; 8.26-16.50=low level of importance; 16.51-24.75=moderate level of importance; 24.76-33.00=high level of importance. 122 to service outside the university tended to consider service-related activities with students slightly more important than their counterparts in other colleges and units. Analysis of variance on the overall scales revealed that the amount of variation in scores on perception of importance which could be explained by the four independent variables was approximately 9.71% (see Appendix F ) . This finding meant, however, that slightly more than 90% of the variation was due to other, yet unknown variables. College/unit had nearly ten times more of an effect on the amount of variation explained than did longevity, appointment type or academic rank. Individual Items The mean scores on each of the individual items were higher than those which had been found on the involvement scale for question nine on the survey instrument (see Table 10). The highest means were found, in descending order, for internships, field study, and independent study. On the other end of the scale, the lowest means were found for career or service clubs, co-op education and course modification. Two individual items showed a noticeably higher percentage of variation explained by the independent variables than the 9.71% which was found overall. These were the items on clinical experience, with 16.07% of the variation explained, and internships, 123 Table 10 Individual Item Means on Perception of Importance Scale for Service-Related Activities With Students by Independent Variable Item Long. Appt. Type Acad. Rank Col/ Unit Field Study Internship Practicum Independent Study Course Modification Clinical Experience Cross-cultural Exper. Service Learning Co-op Education Career or Service Club Other (fill in) 2.03 2.12 1.89 1.98 1.51 1.85 1.74 1.76 1.46 1.32 2.04 2.13 1.90 1.99 1.52 1.85 1.74 1.76 1.46 1.32 2.03 2.12 1.89 1.99 1.51 1.85 1.74 1.76 1.45 1.33 2.03 2.12 1.89 1.98 1.51 1.85 1.73 1.76 1.46 1.32 ---- ---- ---- ---- * 0.00-0.75=not important at all; 0.76-1.50=low level of importance; 1.51-2.25=moderate level of importance; 2.263.00=high level of importance. with 11.39% of the variation explained by the independent variables (see Appendix F ) . Auxiliary Questions Section III of the survey instrument also included several related questions (see Appendix A). Question 10 asked about numbers of students assisted in servicerelated activities, while question 11 asked whether those students were undergraduate or graduate level. Questions 12 and 13 solicited respondents' opinions about the number of credit hours a student should be allowed to earn toward an undergraduate or graduate degree through service-related activities. 124 Approximately 30% of the respondents to question 10 stated that they did not assist any students in servicerelated activities in a typical academic year. However, there were 50.4% of the respondents who were involved with up to 24 students in a typical academic year. On the upper end of the scale, 6.8% reported that they were involved with over 100 students in service-related activities. Respondents were approximately evenly divided on question 11. There were 26.9% who worked primarily with undergraduates, 27.4% who worked primarily with graduate students, and 24.1% checked both. Remaining respondents indicated that this question did not apply to them. The majority of respondents to question 12 indicated that less than nine hours toward an undergraduate degree should be earned through service-related activities. There were 16.4% of the respondents who checked 1-3 hours, 26.5% at 4-6 hours, and 12.2% at 7-9 hours. There were 16.1%, however, who indicated that no credit at all should be earned through service-related activities. Twenty-three per cent of the respondents to question 13 stated that students should not be allowed to earn any credit toward a graduate degree through service-related activities. An additional 42.5% checked that students should be allowed to earn 6 hours or less toward a graduate degree in this manner. 125 Are there institutional practices which mav have an effect upon faculty and academic staff members' participation in public and community service? Analysis of results from Section IV, question 14 of the survey instrument revealed that faculty in general perceived very little institutional support for their involvement in service activities (see Appendix A). Overall Scales On a scale of 24 points in this section, the overall means were nearly seven points (see Table 11). When the overall means were examined by longevity at MSU, appointment type and academic rank, it became clear that responses were highly clustered. These three independent variables seemed to have very little effect on the answers supplied by respondents in this section. A small but discernible difference between overall mean scores was evident, however, when responses were examined by college/unit affiliation. Means ranged from a high of 8.40 points for the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources to a low of 5.15 for the College of Business. Once again traditionally land-grant colleges had means on the high end of the scale, indicating that respondents in those colleges perceived a slightly higher degree of support from the institution for service than did their counterparts in other colleges/units. 126 Table 11 Overall Means on Institutional Practices Scale by Independent Variable Variable LONGEVITY Just Beginning 1 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 or More Years For Entire Population APPOINTMENT TYPE Already Tenured Tenure Stream, Not Ten. Not Tenure Stream Specialist W/Security Specialist No Security For Entire Population ACADEMIC RANK Professor Assoc. Professor Ass't . Professor Instructor Specialist Other For Entire Population COLLEGE/UNIT Agriculture & Nat. Res. Arts and Letters Business Comm. Arts & Sciences Education Engineering Human Ecology Human Medicine Natural Science Osteopathic Medicine Social Science Veterinary Medicine Other Colleges Cooperative Extension Provost/Library Other For Entire Population Mean* St.Dev. Perception Of Suppo] 6.03 6.56 7.29 7.98 6,5? 6.85 5.26 4.80 5.16 5.52 4.99 5.10 rarely rarely rarely rarely rarely rarely 6.99 6.77 6.49 6.15 7.2Q 6.86 5.10 4.86 4.91 5.33 5.70 5.10 rarely rarely rarely rarely rarely rarely 6.86 6.99 6.70 6.45 6.49 6.83 5.06 4.92 4.76 4.51 5.72 5.26 5.06 rarely rarely rarely rarely rarely rarely rarely 8.41 5.47 5.15 6.25 7.48 5.84 7.19 7.34 5.63 7.11 6.39 7.63 7.49 7.81 6.66 7,07 6.85 5.76 4.25 3.99 4.55 5.43 4.64 4.87 4.86 4.89 4.60 4.89 5.15 4.43 5.25 5.27 5-23 5.07 rarely never never rarely rarely never rarely rarely never rarely rarely rarely rarely rarely rarely rarely rarely * 0.00-6.00=never receive support; 6.01-12.00=rarely receive support; 12.01-18.00=sometimes receive support; 18.01-24.00=often receive support. 127 Analysis of variance on the overall scales revealed that 6.06% of the variation on perception of institutional practices could be explained by the four independent variables (see Appendix F). Once again, college/unit affiliation had by far the strongest effect on respondents' perceptions, with academic rank the weakest of the four independent variables. Individual Items Each individual item on questions 14 was scored on a three point scale (see Table 12). Three points meant they often received support from the university; two points meant they sometimes received support, one point meant that they rarely received support and zero points meant they never received support. Four of the eight individual items had means above one, the "rarely" rating: colleague support, adequate space, official recognition and tenure consideration. Approximately 70% of the respondents indicated that they never received financial compensation, a reduced workload or released time in support of their public and community service activities. More than 60% said university transportation was never available for service-related activities, nor did they have graduate assistant or support staff help available for service-related activities. These responses indicated that what little support faculty and academic staff members perceived as 128 Table 12 Individual Item Means on Institutional Practices Scale by Independent Variable Item Long. Appt. Type Acad. Rank Col/ Unit Financial compensation Reduced work/rise.time Tenure consideration Official recognition Colleague support Grad/staff support Univ. transportation Adequate space Other (fill in) .53 .31 1.03 1.20 1.49 .54 .72 1.26 .53 .31 1.03 1.21 1.49 .54 .72 1.26 .53 .32 1.03 1.20 1.49 .54 .72 1.26 .53 .32 1.03 1.20 1.49 .54 .72 1.26 ---- ---- ---- ---- * 0.00-0.75=never receive support; 0.76-1.50=rarely receive support; 1.51-2.25=sometimes receive support; 2.26-3.00=often receive support. coining from the university came primarily from their colleagues and, on rare occasions, from official recognition or tenure consideration by their department chair, college dean or unit head. Analysis of variance revealed that the item on colleague support was the only item for which the variation, 7.51%, was higher than the 6.06% found overall (see Appendix F ) . Results of Relationship Questions In order to fulfill the relational component of the purpose of this study, a series of five research questions was generated. They were designed to identify relationships by drawing comparisons between described 129 behaviors and perceptions which may have an effect on achievement of the service goals of the institution. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X) was employed to analyze results in this section. Means which had been generated for the descriptive questions in this study were compared. Pearson correlations, using a one-tailed test of significance, were employed "to compare the strength and direction of association between different pairs of variables" (Glass and Hopkins, 1984, p. 80). Spearman's rank correlations were also used in analyzing results by college/unit affiliation (see Appendix G ) . This was an appropriate method to employ because those data were measured on an interval scale and were easily converted to rank scores (Hinkle, Wiersma and Jurs, 1979, p. 103). 6. What relationship exists between faculty and academic staff members' extent of involvement in public and community service and their perception of the importance of such service as professional activities for themselves? Section II of the survey instrument dealt with faculty and academic staff members' professional public and community service activities (see Appendix A). This research question was designed to draw a comparison between the responses in the extent of involvement column 130 and responses in the perception of importance column in Section II, question six of the survey instrument. Comparison of Means Overall means on the extent of involvement scale were consistently smaller than overall means on the perception of importance scale (see Table 13). Respondents in general seemed to perceive participation in service activities as more important than would be expected from the extent of their own involvement. In addition, respondents exhibited much more variation in their answers on the extent of involvement scale than they did on their responses to the perception of importance scale. There was a three or four point spread between highest and lowest means on the extent of involvement scale when longevity at MSU, appointment type and academic rank were taken into consideration. On the perception of importance scale, however, approximately one point separated the highest and lowest means for those three independent variables. College/unit affiliation was the only one of the independent variables which had a similar effect on both scales. The largest spread between means on the extent of involvement scale for this variable was 6.35 points. On the perception of importance scale the largest spread between means was 5.44 points. 131 Table 13 Comparison of Means for Professional Public and Community Service by Independent Variable Variable Extent of Prcptn.of Invlvmnt. Range Imprtnce Range LONGEVITY AT MSU Just Beginning 1 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 9 11 to 15 Years 16 or More Years For Entire Population APPOINTMENT TYPE Already Tenured Tenure Stream, Not Ten. Not Tenure Stream Specialist W/Security Specialist No Security For Entire Population ACADEMIC RANK Professor Assoc. Professor Ass't. Professor Instructor Specialist Other For Entire Population COLLEGE/UNIT Agriculture & Nat.Res. Arts & Letters Business Comm. Arts & Sciences Education Engineering Human Ecology Human Medicine Natural Science Osteopathic Medicine Social Science Veterinary Medicine Other Colleges Cooperative Extension Provost/Library Other For Entire Population 7.25 10.07 11.88 12.71 12.02 11.29 none low low low low low 16.81 16.70 16.30 17.89 16.82 16.87 low low low low low low 12.30 9.76 9.60 10.83 9-40 11.31 low low none low none low 17.06 16.74 16.71 16.33 16.20 16.87 low low low low low low 12.17 12.03 9.51 8.54 10.16 10,77 11.23 low low none none low low low 16.94 16.99 16.89 16.20 16.25 19,79 16.83 low low low low low low low 12.46 10.74 11.20 11.32 13.43 10.95 13.54 11.03 7.74 11.10 11.32 10.13 12.84 14.09 7.83 12.18 11.29 low low low low low low low low none low low low low low none low low 17.51 15.74 15.97 17.33 18.88 16.47 19.60 16.67 13.90 17.28 17.71 17.01 19.33 17.77 14.24 19.54 16.85 low low low low low low moderate low low low low low low low low low low * 0.00-9.75=no involvement/not important; 9.76-19.50=low extent of invlvmnt/imprtnce; 19.51-29.25=moderate extent of invlvmnt/imprtnce; 29.26-39.00=high extent of invlvmnt 132 Correlations A Pearson correlation was computed using the overall means found in the two columns in Section II, question six of the survey instrument (see Appendix A). This comparison of overall extent of involvement to overall perception of importance yielded a coefficient of .5159 (pc.001), which meant that 26.6% of a representative respondent's involvement in service activities could be associated with his/her perception of its importance as a professional activity (see Table 14). The highest correlations were found to exist between extent of involvement and perception of importance for ongoing projects with private organizations as a part of workload, ongoing projects with public organizations as a part of workload, and one-shot programs with private organizations as a part of workload. Between 35% and 40% of the extent of involvement in these top three categories could be associated with a faculty or academic staff members' perception of the importance of such activities. At the other end of the scale, only 22.2% of the involvement on MSU committees could be attributed to respondents' perception of the importance of such involvement. Examination of correlation coefficients for the subscales revealed that the percentage of involvement in projects with private organizations could be attributed 133 Table 14 Correlation Coefficients for Individual Items and Subscales Drawn from Comparison of Extent of Involvement and Perception of Importance Scales for Professional Public and Community Service Item/Subscale Correlation Coefficient Workload,one-shot,private Workload,ongoing, private Workload,one-shot, public Workload, ongoing, public MSU committee work Professional organizations Consulting,one-shot,private Consulting, ongoing,private Consulting,one-shot, public Consulting, ongoing, public Civic organizations Community betterment Other (fill in) .5950 .6244 .5415 .6154 .4714 .5602 .5744 .5456 .5047 .5119 .5583 .5154 ----- Private only subscale Public only subscale One-shot only subscale Ongoing only subscale As part of workload subscale Consulting subscale .5909 .5139 .5422 .5398 .5719 .5321 Total scale to total scale .5159 * p<.001 I to perception of their importance about 35% of the time, while involvement in projects with public organizations could be associated with perception of their importance 26.4% of the time. One-shot and ongoing projects and programs were approximately equally represented. The activities as a part of workload subscale yielded a slightly higher coefficient than did the consulting subscale. 134 While a definite positive relationship between the extent of involvement and perception of importance scales existed, nearly 75% of the variation between the two was caused by other, yet unknown factors. A Spearman's rank correlation coefficient of .9059 was discovered when overall means for extent of involvement and perception of importance by college/unit affiliation were compared. This "very high positive correlation" indicated an unusually strong relationship between responses on the two scales by college/unit affiliation (Hinkle, Wiersma and Jurs, 1979, p. 85). 7. What relationship exists between faculty and academic staff members' extent of involvement with students in service-related activities and their perception of the importance of such activities as learning opportunities for students? Section III of the survey instrument dealt with faculty and academic staff members' involvement in service-related activities with students (see Appendix A). This research question was designed to draw a comparison between the responses in the extent of involvement column and responses in the perception of importance column in Section III, question nine of the survey instrument. 135 Comparison of Means The overall means for extent of involvement in this section were considerably smaller than the overall means for perception of importance (see Table 15). A spread of nearly 10 points was found between the overall means when examined by each of the four independent variables. The size of the spread between overall means in this section was nearly twice the size of the spread found in the previous section on professional public and community service activities. It was also notable that while the overall means for extent of involvement differed considerably, the overall means for perception of importance remained relatively constant, although not nearly as clustered as they had been in the previous section on professional public and community service activities. This pattern was particularly true when individual item means were examined under the college/unit affiliation variable. Correlations Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for the overall extent of involvement scale and perception of importance scale as well as for each individual item in this section on service-related activities with students (see Table 16). 136 Table 15 Comparison of Means for Service-Related Activities With Students by Independent Variable Variable Extent of Prcptn.of Invlvemt. Range Imprtnce. LONGEVITY AT MSU Just Beginning 5.74 1 to 5 Years 6.72 6 to 10 Years 7.46 11 to 15 Years 7.86 16 or More Years 6.82 For Entire Population 6.98 APPOINTMENT TYPE Already Tenured 7.47 Tenure Stream, Not Ten. 7.10 Not Tenure Stream 6.62 Specialist W/Security 5.09 Specialist No Security 5.67 For Entire Population 7.05 ACADEMIC RANK Professor 7.47 Assoc. Professor 8.34 Ass't. Professor 7.88 Instructor 7.61 Specialist 5.52 Other 3,58 For Entire Population 7.04 COLLEGE/UNIT Agriculture & Nat. Res. 7.44 Arts and Letters 7.40 Business 6.05 Comm. Arts & Sciences 9.88 Education 10.31 Engineering 5.51 Human Ecology 9.07 Human Medicine 8.00 Natural Science 5.09 Osteopathic Medicine 8.01 Social Science 7.57 Veterinary Medicine 9.30 Other Colleges 8.33 Cooperative Extension 3.79 Provost/Library 2.71 Other 6.73 For Entire Population 6.98 Range none none none none none none 19.51 17.48 16.38 17.31 15.85 16.79 moderate moderate low moderate low moderate none none none none none none 16.20 17.56 17.31 16.67 19.90 16.80 low moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate none low none none none none none 16.00 16.89 18.33 16.51 18.56 19, Q7 16.82 low moderate moderate moderate moderate low moderate none none none low low none low none none none none low low none none none none 18.05 17.38 12.28 18.23 19.62 13.33 20.75 17.16 14.03 16.62 17.90 17.14 18.70 16.22 14.80 19,07 16.77 moderate moderate low moderate moderate low moderate moderate low moderate moderate moderate moderate low low moderate moderate * 0.00-8.25=no involvement/not important; 8.26-16.50=low level of invlvmnt/imprtnce; 16.51-24.75=moderate level of invlvmnt/imprtnce; 24.76-33.00=high invlvmt/imprtnce. 137 Table 16 Correlation Coefficients for Individual Items Drawn From Comparison of Extent of Involvement and Perception of Importance Scales for Service-Related Activities With Students Item Correlation Coefficient .4563 .4026 .4420 .4623 .5144 .4370 .4180 .4462 .3392 .4937 Field Study Internship Practicum Independent Study Course Modification Clinical Experience Cross-cultural Experience Service Learning Co-op Education Career or Service Club Other (fill in) ----- Total Scale to Total Scale .3681 * pc.001 Comparison of the overall means yielded a correlation coefficient of .3681 (pc.001). A coefficient of this size meant that 13.5% of the overall extent of involvement in these activities was associated with respondents' perception of their importance. The .3681 coefficient in this section compared with a .5159 coefficient found in the previous section. Correlation coefficients calculated on individual items ranged from a low of .3392 (p<.001) for co-op education to a high of .5144 (pc.001) for course modification. A range from 11.5% to 26.5% of the involvement in any of these individual activities could be accounted for by the respondent's perception of its 138 importance. In the previous section on professional public and community service activities, the range of variations was from a low of 22.2% to a high of 39.0%. 8. What relationship exists between extent of involvement of faculty and academic staff members in public and community service activities and the extent of their involvement with and/or for students in service-related activities? This research question was designed to compare responses in the extent of involvement column of Section II, question six of the survey instrument with responses in the extent of involvement column of Section III, question nine of the survey instrument (see Appendix A). Comparison of Means A comparison of means by independent variable revealed that responses on the extent of involvement scale for professional public and community service were consistently higher than responses on the extent of involvement scale for service-related activities with students (see Table 17). The average spread between the two means was approximately five points. The size of the difference was actually more, however, because the scale for professional public and community service was based on 39 points overall, while the scale for service-related activities with students was based on 33 points overall. 139 Table 17 Comparison of Means on Extent of Involvement Scales by Independent Variable Variable Prof. Invlvmnt Invlvmnt* Range W/Students** Range LONGEVITY AT MSU 7.25 Just Beginning 1 to 5 Years 10.07 11.88 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 12.71 16 or More Years 12.02 For Entire Population 11.29 APPOINTMENT TYPE 12.30 Already Tenured Tenure Stream, Not.Ten . 9.76 9.60 Not Tenure Stream Specialist W/Security 10.83 Specialist No Security 9.40 For Entire Population 11.31 ACADEMIC RANK 12.17 Professor Assoc. Professor 12.03 Ass't. Professor 9.51 Instructor 8.54 Specialist 10.16 10.77 Other For Entire Population 11.23 COLLEGE/UNIT Agriculture & Nat.Res. 12.46 Arts & Letters 10.74 Business 11.20 Comm. Arts & Sciences 11.32 Education 13.43 Engineering 10.95 Human Ecology 13.54 Human Medicine 11.03 Natural Science 7.74 Osteopathic Medicine 11.10 Social Science 11.32 Veterinary Medicine 10.13 Other Colleges 12.84 Cooperative Extension 14.09 Provost/Library 7.83 Other 12.18 For Entire Population 11.29 * none low low low low low 5.74 6.72 7.46 7.86 6.82 6.98 none none none none none none low low none low none low 7.47 7.10 6.62 5.09 5.67 7.05 none none none none none none low low none none low low low 7.47 8.34 7.88 7.61 5.52 3.58 7.04 none low none none none none none low low low low low low low low none lew low low low low none low low 7.44 7.40 6.05 9.88 10.31 5.51 9.07 8.00 5.09 8.01 7.57 9.30 8.33 3.79 2.71 6.73 6.98 none none none low low none low none none none none low low none none none none 0.00- 9.75=no involvement ** 0.00- 8.25=no involvement 9.76-19.50=low " 8.26-16.50-low " 19.51-29.25=moderate 11 16.51-24.75=moderate " 29.26-39.00=high " 24.76-33.00=high " 140 Longevity at MSU had a greater effect on extent of involvement in professional public and community service than it did on extent of involvement in service-related activities with students, as evidenced by the smaller range of means on the extent of involvement with students scale. Academic rank and college/unit affiliation, however, had less of an effect on the extent of involvement in professional public and community service than they did on extent of involvement with students in service-related activities. Appointment type had approximately the same effect on both scales. The greatest difference between means was found for those who had been at MSU 16 years or more and were already tenured full professors or specialists with job security. Those who were academic staff members but did not fall into the "specialist" category were much more "H kolv t o _ .. ^ bo i nvol vpd in .. . n rn fp ssin n a l _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ nvibl i ci a n d community service than be involved with students in service-related activities. This was to be expected because those in the "Other" category would be much less likely to have direct contact with students. Those in the Cooperative Extension unit evidenced the greatest spread between means, with a very high mean in extent of involvement in professional public and community service and a very low mean in extent of involvement with students in service-related activities. 141 Once again, this was only to be expected because of the nature of Cooperative Extension work and the lack of opportunity for direct involvement with students. Correlations Calculation of a Pearson correlation with a one­ tailed test of significance found that a definite positive relationship existed between the two overall extent of involvement scales, with a coefficient of .4346 (pc.001) (see Table 18). This coefficient meant that the amount of variation in one extent of involvement scale which could be associated with variation in the other was 18.89%. Correlation coefficients were also calculated for comparison of the sub-scales and individual items in the extent of involvement in professional public and community service section with the overall mean for the extent of involvement for service-related activities with students (see Table 18). Likewise, correlation coefficients were calculated for comparison of the overall mean for extent of involvement in professional public and community service with each of the individual items in extent of involvement in service-related activities for students. None of these individual calculations yielded coefficients as high or higher than that which had been found overall, suggesting there were no individual points of greater relationship. 142 Table 18 Correlation Coefficients for Individual Items and Subscales Drawn from Comparison of Extent of Involvement Scales Item/Subscale Correlation Coefficient Workload,one-shot,private Workload,ongoing, private Workload,one-shot, public Workload, ongoing, public MSU committee work Professional organizations Consulting,one-shot,private Consulting, ongoing,private Consulting,one-shot, public Consulting, ongoing, public Civic organizations Community betterment Other (fill in) .1843 .1936 .2639 .2822 .2024 .2603 .2414 .2306 .2985 .2840 .2893 .2722 ----- Private only subscale Public only subscale One-shot only subscale Ongoing only subscale As part of workload subscale Consulting subscale .2743 .3677 .3301 .3554 .2967 .3331 Field study Internship Practicum Independent study Course modification Clinical experience Cross-cultural experience Service learning Co-op education Career or service club Other (fill in) .3287 .2822 .2697 .2416 .2230 .1816 .2650 .3015 .2705 .2915 ----- Total scale to total scale .4346 * p<.001 143 A Spearman rank correlation coefficient with a one­ tailed test of significance was also calculated on the overall means by college/unit affiliation on both extent of involvement scales. This calculation yielded a coefficient of .2181, which suggested that there was very little relationship, college/unit by college/unit, between the two types of involvement. 9 . What relationship exists between faculty and academic staff members' perception of the importance of professional public and community service activities and their perception of the importance of service-related activities with and/or for students? This research question was designed to compare the responses in the perception of importance column of Section II, question six on the survey instrument with the responses in the perception of importance column of Section III, question nine (see Appendix A). Comparison of Means Overall means on the two perception of importance scales were very similar (see Table 19). The overall mean for perception of importance on the professional public and community service scale ranged from 16.83 to 16.87, depending on independent variable. The overall mean on perception of importance for the service-related activities with students scale ranged from 16.77 to 16.82 144 Table 19 Comparison of Means on Perception of Importance Scales by Independent Variable Variable Prof. Importance Imprtnce.* Range W/Students** Range Just Beginning 1 to 5 Years 6 to 10 Years 11 to 15 Years 16 or More Years For Entire Population APPOINTMENT TYPE Already Tenured Tenure Stream, Not Ten. Not Tenure Stream Specialist W/Security Specialist No Security For Entire Population ACADEMIC RANK Professor Assoc. Professor Ass't. Professor Instructor Specialist Other For Entire Population COLLEGE/UNIT Agriculture St Nat. Res. Arts Sc Letters Business Comm. Arts Sc Sciences Education Engineering Human Ecology Human Medicine Natural Science Osteopathic Medicine Social Science Veterinary Medicine Other Colleges Cooperative Extension Provost/Library Other For Entire Population 16.81 16.70 16.30 17.89 16.82 16.87 low low low low low low 19.51 17.48 16.38 17.31 15.85 16.79 moderate moderate low moderate low moderate 17.06 16.74 16.71 16.33 16.20 16.87 low low low low low low 16.20 17.56 17.31 16.67 19.90 16.80 low moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate 16.94 16.99 16.89 16.20 16.25 16.78 16.83 low low low low low low low 16.00 16.89 18.33 16.51 18.56 16,07 16.82 low moderate moderate moderate moderate low moderate 18.05 17.51 low 17.38 15.74 low 12.28 15.97 low 18.23 17.33 low 18.88 19.62 low 13.33 16.47 low 19.60 moderate 20.75 17.16 16.67 low 14.03 13.90 low 16.62 17.28 low 17.71 17.90 low 17.14 17.01 low 18.70 19.33 low 17.77 low 16.22 14.80 14.24 low 18.07 low 18.54 16.85 low 16.77 moderate moderate low moderate moderate low moderate moderate low moderate moderate moderate moderate low low moderate moderate * 0.00- 9.75=not important 9.76-19.50=low importance 19.51-29.25=moderate " 29.26-39.00=high » ** 0.00- 8.25=not important 8.26-16.50=low importance 16.51-24.75=moderate " 24.76-33.00=high " 145 points. It should be kept in mind, however, that the two scales were figured on different point bases. All four independent variables were found to have less of an impact on the perception of importance scale for professional public and community service that they had on the perception of importance scale for servicerelated activities with students. Longevity at MSU, appointment type and academic rank all showed very little spread between category means. College/unit affiliation generated a slightly larger spread between means. Correlations When a Pearson correlation was calculated between the overall means on the two perception of importance scales, using a one-tailed test of significance, a coefficient of .4378 (pc.001) was found (see Table 20). A coefficient of that size meant that 19.17% of the variation in one could be associated with the variation in the other. Correlation coefficients were also calculated for comparison of the sub-scales and individual items in the perception of importance of professional public and community service section with the overall mean for the perception of importance of service-related activities with students (see Table 20). Likewise, correlation coefficients were calculated for comparison of the overall mean for perception of importance of professional 146 Table 20 Correlation Coefficients for Individual Items and Subscales Drawn from Comparison of Perception of Importance Scales Item/Subscale Correlation Coefficient Workload,one-shot,private Workload,ongoing, private Workload,one-shot, public Workload, ongoing, public MSU committee work Professional organizations Consulting,one-shot,private Consulting,ongoing, private Consulting,one-shot, public Consulting, ongoing, public Civic organizations Community betterment Other (fill in) .2215 .1995 .2807 .2996 .2200 .2551 .1959 .2066 .2447 .2375 .3289 .3474 ----- Private only subscale Public only subscale One-shot only subscale Ongoing only subscale As part of workload subscale Consulting subscale .2671 .3545 .3168 .3323 .3230 .2633 Field study Internship Practicum Independent studv Course modification Clinical experience Cross-cultural experience Service learning Co-op education Career or service club Other (fill in) .3334 .3236 .3064 .3019 .3117 .2777 .3017 .3404 .3137 .3269 ----- Total scale to total scale .4378 A . * Pc.001 . 1 147 public and community service with each of the individual items in perception of importance of service-related activities for students. In every case the correlation coefficient was smaller than that which was found when the overall scales were compared, indicating there were no points of greater relationship than that which had been found overall. A coefficient of .7012 was obtained when a Spearman rank correlation was calculated between the overall means on the two perception of importance scales by college/unit affiliation. This suggested a high positive relationship college/unit by college/unit between responses on the two perception of importance scales. 10. What relationship exists between institutional practices and extent of faculty and academic staff members/ involvement in professional public and community service activities_and.theimerception of its importance as a professional activity? Section IV, question 14 of the survey instrument included a series of nine statements regarding institutional practices which may have an effect on faculty and academic staff involvement in public and community service activities (see Appendix A). Correlation coefficients were calculated between responses in Section IV, question 14 and responses on 148 both the extent of involvement and perception of importance scales in Section II, question six of the survey instrument. Institutional Practices and Extent of Involvement A coefficient of .2641 (p.<001) resulted when the overall mean on the institutional practices scale was correlated with the overall mean on the extent of involvement scale for professional public and community service (see Table 21). This finding meant that, while a positive relationship between the two was present, institutional practices could account for only 6.97% of the variation in extent of involvement in professional public and community service. When individual items on the institutional practices scale were correlated with the overall extent of involvement in professional public and community service, none of the coefficients were larger than the .2641 obtained overall (see Table 21). However, there were two coefficients which were higher than .2641 when the overall institutional practices mean was correlated with the individual item and subscale means on the extent of involvement scale. A coefficient of .2886 (P<.001) was obtained when the overall institutional practices scale was correlated with service as a part of workload. Correlation of the overall institutional practices scale with the item on ongoing projects with public 149 Table 21 Correlation Coefficients for Individual Items and Subscales Drawn from Comparison of Institutional Practices Scale and Extent of Involvement Scale in Professional Public and Community Service Item/Subscale Correlation Coefficient Financial compensation Reduced workload Consideration in tenure,promotion Official recognition Colleague support Grad asst./support staff help University transportation Classroom/meeting space .1881 .1801 .1475 .1396 .2305 .1606 .1203 .1481 Workload,one-shot,private Workload, ongoing,private Workload,one-shot, public Workload, ongoing, public MSU committee work Professional organizations Consulting,one-shot,private Consulting, ongoing,private Consulting,one-shot, public Consulting, ongoing, public Civic organizations Community betterment Other (fill in) .1652 .1885 .2519 .2793 .0732 .1205 .1017 .0582 .1209 .0695 .1443 .1548 ----- Private only subscale Public only subscale One-shot only subscale Ongoing only subscale As part of workload subscale Consulting subscale .1754 .2573 .2268 .2362 .2886 .1106 Total scale to total scale .2641 * P<.00l 150 organizations yielded a coefficient of .2793 (pc.001). These findings indicated that institutional practices would have a slightly stronger effect on faculty and academic staff involvement in these two areas. Institutional Practices and Perception of Importance The institutional practices scale was also correlated with the perception of importance scale on professional public and community service in Section II, question six of the survey instrument (see Appendix A). A coefficient of .1669 (pc.001) was found when the overall means of the two scales were correlated (see Table 22). This meant that less than 3% of the variation in one could be accounted for by the variation in the other. While this meant that a positive relationship existed between the two, it also suggested that institutional practices had practically no effect on faculty and academic staff members' perception of the importance of public and community service activities. Several comparisons of individual items to overall scales yielded a slightly higher correlation than the .1669 found overall, suggesting a slightly higher degree of relationship (see Table 22). The individual item on colleague support in the institutional practices section yielded a coefficient of .1691 when correlated with the overall perception of importance scale in the professional public and community service section. When 151 Table 22 Correlation Coefficients for Individual Items and Subscales Drawn from Comparison of Institutional Practices Scale and Perception of Importance Scale in Professional Public and Community Service Item/Subscale Correlation Coefficient Financial compensation Reduced workload Consideration in tenure,promotion Official recognition Colleague support Grad ass't./support staff help University transportation Classroom/meeting space .1127 .0617 .0930 .0857 .1691 .0968 .1013 .1383 Workload,one-shot,private Workload, ongoing,private Workload,one-shot,public Workload, ongoing,public MSU committee work Professional organizations Consulting,one-shot,private Consulting, ongoing,private Consulting,one-shot,public Consulting, ongoing,public Civic organizations Community betterment Other (fill in) .1237 .1236 .1710 .1948 .0374 .0776 .0572 .0286 .0763 .0456 .0955 .0956 ----- Private only subscale Public only subscale One-shot only subscale Ongoing only subscale As part of workload subscale Consulting subscale .1089 .1602 .1441 .1382 .1913 .0664 Total scale to total scale .1669 * pc.001 152 the overall institutional practices scale was compared with the item on service as part of workload, a coefficient of .1913 resulted. A coefficient of .1710 was found when the overall institutional practices scale was correlated with the item on one-shot programs with public organizations. A Spearman's rank correlation yielded a coefficient of .6559 when overall means on the two scales were compared using the college/unit affiliation variable. This finding indicated that most of the relationship which existed between the two overall scales could be accounted for by college/unit affiliation, consistent with previous analyses of variance findings. Results of Analytical Questions In order to fulfill the analytical component of the purpose of this study, two additional research questions were generated. They were designed to analyze relationships, including any which may have emerged through manipulation of the data. Examination of the relationships in the data also yielded several important patterns which could have a bearing on principles to be developed or hypotheses to be generated in the conclusions to this investigation. 153 11. Were there any additional relationships which emerged from analysis of findings of this study? One additional relationship became of interest to the investigator as the analysis of results progressed: was there any discernible difference in responses made by those classified by the university as faculty and those classified as academic staff members? Segregating faculty from those classified as academic staff members for this purpose was problematic for the following reasons: (1) while the majority of faculty members held appointments in colleges, there was a small number with faculty status whose primary appointments were in other institutional units such as lifelong education or administrative posts, and (2) while most of those respondents who were classified as academic staff members held appointments in administrative or academic units other than colleges, there were a few academic staff respondents whose primary appointments were in colleges. In order to achieve the best approximation of the two separate groups of faculty and academic staff, the decision was made to separate and compare the data from colleges with data from other institutional units. However, some manipulations of the data were necessary before the comparison was made in order to more 154 accurately represent the two separate groups. First, the Cyclotron category was clustered with the College of Natural Science because most of the people in the Cyclotron category held faculty status in that college. Secondly, intercollegiate athletics, lifelong education, research and graduate studies, student affairs and "other" were clustered because the majority of the people in those institutional units were academic staff members rather than faculty. Finally, Cooperative Extension was left to stand alone because of its uniqueness, although the majority of its members are considered academic staff members, according to the MSU Office of Academic Personnel Records. Cooperative Extension was considered to be unique for several reasons: (1) the nature of Cooperative Extension work is such that it involves a great deal of service to external constituents, and (2) most Cooperative Extension appointments are in counties throughout the State of Michigan, not on MSU's main campus in East Lansing. The investigator wanted to determine if these two factors might have an effect on the responses of academic staff members in Cooperative Extension that would not be present for other academic staff respondents. Consequently, Cooperative Extension was considered as a discretely separate category in order not to skew the data for other academic staff members. 155 Table 23 Comparison of Means on Individual Items, Subscales and Overall Scales in Professional Public and Community Service and Service-Related Activities With Students By Appointment Type Involvement Fac. Stf. Ext. Importance Fac. Stf. Ext. Wkld,one-shot,pri. .70 Wkld,ongoing,pri. .72 Wkld,one-shot,pub. 1.09 Wkld,ongoing,pub. 1.28 MSU committees 1.93 Prof.organi zations 1.54 Cnslt,one-shot,pri. .56 Cnslt,ongoing,pri. .43 Cnslt,one-shot,pub. .56 .51 Cnslt,ongoing,pub. Civic organizations 1.24 Btrment.intiat. 1.13 (*on a 3 point scale) .85 .69 1.23 1.19 1.65 1.65 .60 .40 .69 .60 1.55 1.29 1.23 1.21 2.01 2.11 1.48 1.74 .24 .21 .32 .31 1.75 1.65 1.25 1.27 1.76 1.91 2.08 2.17 .98 .97 1.14 1.14 1.70 1.72 1.30 1.24 1.83 1.94 2.08 2.21 1.00 .86 1.21 1.19 2.07 2.00 1.47 1.40 2.21 2.30 1.92 2.05 .71 .60 .65 .65 2.04 2.15 Private subscale 2.36 Public subscale 3.37 One-shot subscale 2.86 Ongoing subscale 3.12 Workload subscale 3.73 Consulting subscale 2.03 (*on a 12 point scale) 2.50 3.64 3.33 2.80 3.91 2.27 2.86 4.64 3.71 3.79 6.44 1.08 4.27 5.77 4.96 5.08 6.06 3.84 4.34 6.11 5.32 5.14 6.22 4.24 4.10 5.61 4.88 4.83 7.24 2.61 Overall means 11.49 12.18 14.09 (*on a 39 point scale) Field study .97 Internship 1.04 Practicum .71 Independent study 1.18 Course modification .76 Clinical experience .78 Cross-cultural .63 Service-learning .80 Co-op education .29 Career/service club .64 (*on a 3 point scale) .68 1.13 .91 .86 .54 .64 .68 .68 .38 .53 Overall means 7.62 (*on a 33 point scale) 6.73 .70 .58 .28 .29 .19 .25 .36 .41 .27 .49 18.33 18.54 17.77 2.05 2.19 1.92 1.97 1.55 1.88 1.80 1.78 1.36 1.35 2.22 2.34 2.19 1.93 1.53 2.04 2.03 1.92 1.69 1.30 2.05 2.10 1.72 1.66 1.41 1.86 1.61 1.74 1.57 1.39 3.79 | 17.11 18.07 16.22 156 Following the redistribution of responses, simple statistics were computed for colleges (faculty), for other institutional units (academic staff) and for Cooperative Extension (see Table 23). Very slight but discernible differences were found when means from the three groups were compared on the extent of involvement scales in both question six and question nine of the survey instrument (see Appendix A). Those in colleges (faculty) had slightly lower means than did their colleagues (academic staff) in other institutional units. Respondents in Cooperative Extension had consistently higher means than either those in colleges or other institutional units on the professional involvement scale (except for consulting) and consistently lower means on the extent of involvement with students scale than did their colleagues in colleges and other institutional units of the university. Differences between the three groups on the perception of importance scales for both professional service and service-related activities with students were more closely clustered. These findings regarding both perception of importance scales were consistent with previous findings in this study. 157 12. What patterns, if any, can be identified which may prove useful in developing recommendations to enhance achievement of service goals or in generating hypotheses for testing in further research? There were six particular patterns in responses which could be identified through the examination of findings from the first 10 research questions in this study which could prove useful in developing recommendations to enhance achievement of service goals or in generating hypotheses for testing in further research. 1. The six patterns were as follows: Extent of involvement scores in both professional public and community service and servicerelated activities with students were consistently lower than perception of importance scores. In the professional public and community service section, the overall mean for extent of involvement. 11.32. was approximately five and one half points lower than the perception of importance mean, 16.87, on a 39 point scale (see Table 13). In the service-related activities with students section, the overall mean for extent of involvement, 6.98, was almost ten points lower than the overall mean for perception of importance, 16.75, on a 33 point scale (see Table 15). 2. The perception of importance ratings were relatively stable on both professional public and 158 community service and service-related activities with students scales, regardless of independent variable, while the overall means for extent of involvement differed considerably on the two scales. The means for perception of importance were at 16.87 on the 39 point professional involvement scale and at 16.75 on the 33 point service-related activities with students scale (see Table 19). Also, differences in standard deviations were of the same relative magnitude on the perception of importance scales in both sections, indicating a tight clustering of responses about the mean. On the extent of involvement scales, however, the overall mean in the professional public and community service section was 11.32, while the overall mean in the service-related activities with students sections was 6.98 (see Table 17). 3. The amount of variation in scores which could be accounted for by the independent variables on the extent of involvement scales was somewhat higher than the amount of variation in scores which could be accounted for by the independent variables on the perception of importance scales. The amount of variation which could be explained by the independent variables on extent of involvement in professional public and community service was 13.88% (see page 107), compared to 5.73% on the perception of importance scale (see page 113). In the service-related 159 activities with students section, 10.61% of the variation in extent of involvement could be accounted for by the independent variables (see page 117) compared to 9.71% on the perception of importance scale (see page 121). 4. Faculty and academic staff members' extent of involvement in professional public and community service activities revealed a pattern of stronger relationship with their own perception of its importance than with any university practices which may have an effect on such involvement. A coefficient of .5159 was found when the overall extent of involvement scale was correlated with the perception of importance scale in the professional public and community service section (see Table 14). A coefficient of .2641 was found when overall extent of involvement in professional public and community service was correlated with university practices which may affect such involvement (see Table 21). 5. College/unit affiliation was by far the strongest overall predictor of the four identified independent variables. Results from the analyses of variance in each section revealed that college/unit affiliation consistently had a stronger effect on subjects' responses than longevity at MSU, academic rank or appointment type (see Appendix F). In addition, Spearman's rank correlations calculated using college/unit affiliation found consistently higher 160 coefficients than those identified when the overall means were correlated. 6. Those who had been at MSU for 11-15 years scored consistently higher than any of the other longevity categories on every scale, with only one exception. Tables 3, 5, 7, and 11 showed 11-15 years as the longevity category with the highest mean. Perception of importance on the service-related activities with students scale (Table 9) is the only place in which those in the 11-15 year category did not score highest. Results of Definitional Question The final question on the survey instrument was one which asked for examples of recent involvement in both professional public and community service and servicerelated activities with students. It was expected that responses to this open-ended question would yield an understanding of what faculty and academic staff members considered to be legitimate service activities. Their responses could then be compared with the definitions of public and community service outlined in Chapter I in order to arrive at an operational definition of service for Michigan State University. Of the 1,980 useable responses, 907 (45.8%) included answers to the optional open-ended question. In an effort to categorize the responses, a chart was created 161 Table 24 Summary of Results from Open-Ended Question Regarding Recent Involvement in Public and Community Service Item Workload, private Workload, public Consulting, private Consulting, public MSU committees Professional organizations Civic/service organizations Community betterment Church/synagogue involvement* Other# Field study Internship Practicum Independent study Course modification Clinical experience Cross-cultural experience Service learning Co-op education Career/service club No. of Responses 304 631 85 22 96 350 215 75 120 99 48 72 26 47 2 21 14 7 6 47 ♦Category not included in original listing, but appeared repeatedly in individual responses. #Included such activities as jury duty, nursing home visits, Special Olympics, coaching, translation work, hospice, radio talking book, media interviews. 162 by the investigator which corresponded to the categories identified in guestions six and nine of the survey instrument (see Appendix A), with one exception. It was impossible to determine from many of the responses whether respondents' involvement was one-time or on­ going, so this variable was not taken into consideration when the tabulations were done. As well, it was difficult to determine when respondents' involvement should be considered part of workload, thus necessitating what may appear to be some arbitrary tabulation decisions on the part of the investigator. While it may not always have been readily apparent where to place a particular example, the chart provided a framework for organizing responses to this question (see Table 24). A representative listing of service activities may be found in Appendix H. Several observations about the responses in general need to be made. First, these responses exhibited a broad range of involvement in public and community service. It was clear that MSU faculty and academic staff members who chose to respond to this question were serving their communities, the university and their profession on the state, national and even international levels. Second, while few respondents listed specific service-related activities with students, a number of 163 respondents stated that their public and community service activities involved students as well. Inclusion of students in service activities was most often the case in agriculture, human ecology, the medical schools and in business. For example, faculty members in veterinary medicine routinely took students with them on farm visits. Third, it was also clear from the variety of responses that some confusion existed about what constituted public and community service and what did not. For example, a substantial number of respondents included their church involvement as an example of a service activity, although such involvement does not fit the definition of either public service or community service as outlined in Chapter I. Also, most respondents did not distinguish between activities which used professional expertise (public service) and those which were done as a private citizen (community service). Fourth, a number of respondents stated specifically that they were involved in service activities despite a lack of university or college support for such activities. Forty-two (4.6%) of the respondents used the space provided for the open-ended question also to express their opinions about the "university's attitude" toward service (see Appendix I). The majority said that service was neither recognized nor rewarded, and a few 164 went so far as to say it was "given negative weight in tenure and promotion consideration." In one college, service activities could account for only 10% of workload, in another it was 15% and in a third college it was 20%, although that particular respondent thought that was "a joke" as it really "counted for nothing." A number of respondents did not perceive service as receiving the reward it should, especially in light of the university's land-grant mission. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Introduction This chapter contains a summary of the purpose, structure and methodology used in this study, then presents assumptions about and limitations of the data collected. With these caveats in mind, the major findings are then presented along with conclusions which can be drawn from the major findings. The chapter concludes with implications of the study, recommendations for further research and reflections. Summary Purpose The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of the public service component of the institutional mission of Michigan State University, a land-grant institution. This purpose was achieved by developing and administering a survey of public and community service activities of MSU faculty and academic staff members during Fall Term, 1988. 165 166 There were three primary reasons why the study was undertaken: (1) paucity of research regarding public service, (2) perceived need to clarify the concept and definition of public service, and (3) lack of concrete, comprehensive information regarding the public and community service activities of faculty and academic staff members at Michigan State University. Structure The study employed descriptive, relational, analytical and definitional questions to generate information from respondents. Five research questions were formulated to address the descriptive component of this study. The questions were designed to determine the extent of involvement of MSU faculty and academic staff members in public and community service activities, both personally and with and/or for students. Several questions also were included which addressed faculty and academic staff members' perceptions of the importance of such involvement both as professional activities for themselves and as learning opportunities for their students. 1. The five descriptive questions were: To what extent are MSU faculty and academic staff members involved in public and community service? 2. To what extent do MSU faculty and academic staff members consider public and community service important as professional activities? 167 3. To what extent are MSU faculty and academic staff members involved with students in service-related activities? In other words, if faculty and academic staff members consider public and community service involvement important for themselves, does that consideration translate into involvement with and support for students in service-related activities? 4. To what extent do faculty and academic staff members consider service-related activities to be important as learning opportunities for students? 5. Are there institutional practices which may have an effect upon faculty and academic staff members' participation in public and community service? Five additional research questions were generated in order to identify relationships between described behaviors and perceptions which may have an effect on the achievement of the service component of the institutional mission. Several comparisons were drawn between responses on extent of involvement scales and responses on perception of importance scales in the survey instrument, as well as comparisons between responses on the institutional practices scale and responses on both scales in the professional public and community services section. 6. The five relational research questions were: What relationship exists between faculty and academic staff members' extent of involvement in public 168 and community service and their perception of the importance of such services as professional activities for themselves? 7. What relationship exists between faculty and academic staff members' extent of involvement with students in service-related activities and their perception of the importance of such activities as learning opportunities for students? 8. What relationship exists between extent of involvement of faculty and academic staff members in public and community service activities and the extent of their involvement with and/or for students in servicerelated activities? 9. What relationship exists between faculty and academic staff members' perception of the importance of professional public and community service activities and their perception of the importance of service-related activities with and/or for students? 10. What relationship exists between institutional practices and extent of faculty and academic staff members' involvement in professional public and community service activities and their perception of its importance as a professional activity? The analytical component of the study was accomplished by generating two additional research questions which were designed to analyze relationships, 169 including any which may have emerged through manipulation of the data. Examination of the relationships in the data also yielded several important patterns in responses. 11. The questions were as follows: Are there any additional relationships which emerge from analysis of findings of this study? 12. What patterns, if any, can be identified which may prove useful in developing recommendations to enhance achievement of service goals or in generating hypotheses for testing in further research? Finally, the definitional component of the study was accomplished by analyzing the results of the open-ended question which asked for examples of recent involvement in public and community service, both personally and with and/or for students. It was expected that responses to this open-ended question would yield an operational definition of service for Michigan State University (MSU). Methodology A survey questionnaire was developed in order to pursue responses to the 12 research questions outlined above. It was refined, pilot tested and then administered through campus mail to 3,187 subjects and through U.S. mail to 344 additional members of the faculty and academic staff, as identified by the MSU Office of Academic Personnel Records in early October, 170 1988. A follow-up letter requesting participation and return of the completed instrument was sent approximately two weeks later to all who had not yet responded. Of the total 3,531 instruments distributed, 2,005 were returned, of which 1,980 were useable for a 56% return rate. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X) was used to analyze the data generated in this study. Simple statistics were computed, including means and standard deviations. Computation of correlation coefficients and analyses of variance were employed to determine the relationships among and between means in the various sections of the survey instrument. Assumptions About and Limitations of the Data Several assumptions were made regarding the data generated in this study which may influence the value of the resulting conclusions. First, all of the numbers assigned to variables throughout the survey were treated as interval level data. Interval measurement involves assigning numbers to objects in such a way that equal differences in the numbers correspond to equal differences in the amounts of the attribute measured (Glass and Hopkins, 1984, p. 7). Treating the data in this manner meant that perceived differences between item scores on a single item, across items for a single individual or among all respondents 171 were assumed to be of the same relative magnitude. Such an assumption may not be an accurate reflection of the perceived differences in the eyes of the subjects. The data should be interpreted with caution in light of this fact. Second, it was assumed that subjects in this study possessed a reasonably accurate perception of current university practices which may have had an effect on their participation in service activities. It was also assumed that, as they responded, the subjects possessed a reasonably accurate perception of the reward structure of the university. Expectations of the accuracy of such perceptions on the part of all respondents may be optimistic, again indicating the need to approach interpretation of the data with caution. A number of caveats also must be taken into consideration regarding the representativeness of the respondents in this survey. First, because the subjects who chose to respond were, in a manner of speaking, selfselected, they constituted a "volunteer sample" (Borg and Gall, 1983, p. 251). Since "volunteers have been found in many studies to differ from non-volunteers [and] are likely to be a biased sample of the target population," it would seem reasonable to assume that those who chose to respond to this survey may differ from those who did not respond (Borg and Gall, 1983, p. 251). Thus, even 172 though the distribution of respondents was fairly representative of the population by college/unit affiliation, for example, that distribution may not necessarily mean that the respondents were representative of all of their colleagues in that particular college or unit. Second, no effort was made to determine if those who did not participate in the study, the non-volunteers, would have provided significantly different responses to the questionnaire than did the volunteer respondents. Such an "exhaustive method" applied to the procedures used in this study could possibly have resulted in more accurate conclusions being drawn from the data (Borg and Gall, 1983, p. 254). Third, a chi-square test could have been conducted on the frequency counts during the administration of the questionnaire, in order to determine if the returns were representative as they were being collected (Borg and Gall, 1983, p. 559). This technique would have allowed for some additional follow-up with groups which may have been under-represented at the time. As it was, only sheer luck gave the investigator a sample that was fairly representative of the population being studied. A number of procedural problems which occurred during the administration of the survey may also have had an adverse effect upon the accuracy of the results. 173 First, the survey instrument itself was criticized by a number of the subjects because it did not "fit" their particular situation. For example, the investigator received telephone calls from a number of subjects in the Cooperative Extension Unit and in the medical schools who found it particularly difficult to respond to the selections they were given on the questionnaire. While these people fit the university's definition of faculty or academic staff, the unique nature of their appointments was significantly different from more typical faculty appointments, and were not accurately reflected in the questions asked. A small number of respondents also made written comments in the space provided for the open-ended question about how "poorly conceptualized" the survey instrument was. Second, the sets of labels obtained from the Office of Academic Personnel Records were not as "clean" as the investigator would have liked. An effort was made by the investigator to correct some of the more apparent problems such as eliminating those who were on sabbatical, but it is possible that a few of the labels included in the final count of 3,531 were not valid subjects for this study. Also, the labels for the pilot test group inadvertently were not removed and ended up being used in the study itself. While the pilot test group constituted only 20 of the 3,531 subjects, it is 174 possible that their inclusion may have slightly skewed the final results of this study. In light of these assumptions about and limitations of the data generated in this study, the major findings and conclusions are offered as suggestive rather than definitive. Maior Findings and Conclusions Demographic information collected in the first section of the questionnaire revealed that respondents were very representative of the total population in relationship to the variables of full-time/part-time status and college/unit affiliation and fairly representative of the total population in relationship to the variables of type of appointment and academic rank. It was not possible to tell how accurately the respondents represented the total population in relationship to the variable of longevity at MSU since information about faculty and academic staff longevity for the total population was not available from the Office of Academic Personnel Records. Maior Findings From Descriptive Questions The first set of five research questions was designed to describe the extent of involvement of faculty and academic staff members in both professional public and community service and in service-related activities 175 with and/or for students. Several of the questions also were generated to describe faculty and academic staff members' perception of the importance of such involvement both as a professional activity for themselves and as learning opportunities for students. A final question solicited responses regarding university practices which may have an effect on extent of involvement in and perception of importance of professional public and community service activities. Results indicated that involvement in public and community service as a professional activity was fairly widespread among respondents, with an overall mean slightly higher than 11 points on a 39 point scale. Most activity was concentrated in four areas, in descending order: 1) MSU committee work, 2) involvement in professional organizations, 3) ongoing projects with public groups as a part of workload, and 4) involvement in civic organizations. Those from traditional land-grant colleges such as Agriculture and Natural Resources and Human Ecology exhibited the highest extent of involvement in professional service activities. This finding was congruent with results from a 1986 study conducted in the University of California system, which found "relatively high participation [in] the College of Agriculture and Environmental Science" (Dowling, 1986, p. 13). 176 Analysis of variance for the overall scales revealed that the amount of variation which was explained by all four of the independent variables was 13.88% of the total. The overall mean on the perception of importance scale for professional public and community service was nearly 17 points on the 39 point scale. Individual activities perceived to be most important were, in descending order: 1) involvement in professional organizations, 2) MSU committee work, 3) ongoing projects with public groups as a part of workload, and 4) one-shot programs with public groups as a part of workload. The amount of variation in responses which could be accounted for by the four independent variables was 5.73% of the total. Involvement with students in service-related activities was not as widespread as professional involvement, with an overall mean at approximately seven points on a 33 point scale. Activities revealing the greatest extent of involvement with students were, in descending order: 1) independent study, 2) field study, 3) internship, and 4) service learning. Analysis of variance revealed that the amount of variation in respondents' scores on the extent of involvement with students scale which could be accounted for by the four independent variables was 10.61%. Ill An overall mean at nearly 17 points on the 33 point scale was revealed by respondents on the perception of importance scale for service-related activities with students. Individual activities perceived to be most important were, in descending order: 1) internship, 2) field study, 3) independent study, and 4) practicum. Only 9.71% of the variation in scores on the perception of importance scales could be accounted for by the four independent variables. The final descriptive question addressed institutional practices which may have an effect on faculty and academic staff members' involvement in professional public and community service activities. The overall means in this section were at approximately seven points on a 24 point scale. Respondents found their colleagues to be more supportive of their service an tivities than w a s ths u n i v e r s i t y , since the item on "colleague support" had a higher overall mean than any of the individual items more directly related to university practices. Only three of the eight items indicated support more than "rarely" from the university. descending order: They were, in 1) adequate space, 2) official recognition, and 3) tenure consideration. Only 6.06% of the variation in extent of involvement could be related to perception of institutional support. 178 These findings were congruent with those described in the general literature. A 1984 study of five state universities in Ohio found that "external service had 'very little impact' on their regular salary or on promotion and tenure decisions" (Johnson, et al, 1984, p. 28). A 1986 study on dimensions of stress among university faculty members at doctorate-granting institutions found that the factor which created the greatest amount of stress was "receiving inadequate university recognition for community service" (Gmelch, Wilke and Lovrich, 1986, p. 273). Conclusions from Descriptive Questions There was much more variation in the means on the extent of involvement scales than there was in the means on the perception of importance scales for all four independent variables in both the professional public and community service section and the service-related activities with students section. Even though all of the independent variables taken together seldom accounted for more than 20% of the variation in a dependent variable, analysis of variance revealed a stronger relationship between the independent variables and the extent of involvement scales than there was between the independent variables and the perception of importance scores in both sections. Finally, means on the extent of involvement scales were consistently lower than means on the 179 perception of importance scales for all four independent variables in both sections. These patterns of responses would support the following conclusions: 1) there was a shared university-wide value present regarding the perceived importance of public and community service which transcended longevity at MSU, academic rank, appointment type and even college/unit affiliation (the strongest indicator of the four independent variables); and 2) while respondents considered professional service involvement to be quite important and service-related activities with students to be particularly important, opportunities offered (or taken) to enact those values varied considerably, especially when considered college/unit by college/unit. Maior Findings From Relationship Questions The second set of research questions was designed to identify relationships between the extent of involvement scales and perception of importance scales for professional public and community service and for service-related activities with students. Comparisons were also drawn between the university practices scale and the two scales in the professional public and community service section (see Appendix G). Pearson correlations calculated on the overall means on the extent of involvement scale and the perception of importance scale in the professional public and community service section yielded a coefficient of .5159 (pc.001). A coefficient of this size meant that 26.6% of a 180 respondent's involvement in service activities could be associated with his/her perception of its importance as a professional activity. A Spearman's rank correlation coefficient of .9059 was determined when means on the two scales were compared taking only college/unit affiliation into account (see Appendix G ) . A coefficient of this magnitude indicated a very strong positive relationship between extent of involvement and perception of importance of professional public and community service by college/unit affiliation. A Pearson correlation between overall means for the extent of involvement scale and perception of importance scale in the service-related activities with students section yielded a coefficient of .3681 (pc.001). Coefficients calculated between individual item means were all higher, however (except the item on co-op education), indicating that there were points of stronger relationship between extent of involvement and perception of importance on each individual item than was found overall. A coefficient of .4346 was found when the overall means for the two extent of involvement scales were correlated. However, none of the coefficients generated when individual items were compared were higher than that found when the two scales were compared overall. 181 A correlation calculated between the overall means on the two perception of importance scales yielded a coefficient of .4378. None of the individual item correlations yielded a coefficient of this size. Spearman's rank correlation computations yielded a coefficient of .7012 when means on the two perception of importance scales were compared college/unit by college/unit, indicating a fairly strong relationship between the two means when only that variable was taken into consideration (see Appendix G ) . A coefficient of .2641 resulted when a correlation was computed between the overall university practices scale and the extent of involvement in professional public and community service scale. A coefficient of .1691 was found when the overall university practices scale and the perception of importance scale in professional public and community service were compared. Both coefficients indicated a positive but relatively weak relationship existed between the two overall scales. However, when only college/unit affiliation was taken into consideration, Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were .6868 and .6559 respectively (see Appendix G ) . Coefficients of this size indicated a fairly strong positive relationship between the two means when comparisons were made college/unit by college/unit. 182 Conclusions From Relationship Questions These major findings indicated that a fairly strong relationship existed between faculty and academic staff members' extent of involvement in professional public and community service activities and their perception of the importance of such activities. A positive relationship also existed between involvement in professional public and community service and involvement with students in service-related activities. The strength of relationship between respondents' perception of institutional practices and their extent of involvement in public and community service activities was tenuous at best when overall means were correlated. There was even less of a relationship between their perception of university practices and their perception of the importance of public and community service as nrofessional activities. * However, the strenath of the > ^ relationship between the university practices scale and both scales in the professional public and community service section was considerably greater when college/unit affiliation alone was taken into consideration. These patterns of responses would support the following conclusions: 1) if the university wished to increase involvement in public and community service, it would do well to capitalize on the universitywide shared value of the importance of service. 183 2) there must be other factors at work beside university practices which motivated involvement in both professional public and community service and service-related activities with students. Other factors which motivated involvement in service activities may include such things as a sense of personal gratification from such involvement, a motivation to contribute to the improvement of the community or university or profession itself, or the desire for students to benefit from involvement in learning activities which take them beyond the traditional classroom or laboratory. Maior Findings From Analytical Questions Two research questions were designed to analyze relationships which had emerged in the data, both those previously identified and those relationships which developed as data analysis progressed. Patterns in responses which emerged through such analysis were also identified. The question which became of interest to the investigator as the data analysis progressed was if there were any discernible differences between responses made by faculty, by academic staff and those in Cooperative Extension. Results indicated that there were slight but discernible differences in responses on the two extent of involvement scales, but practically no differences on the perception of importance scales. 184 Analysis of results from the first ten research questions yielded six particular patterns of responses which were considered to be of importance. They were: 1. Extent of involvement scores in both professional public and community service and service-related activities with students were lower than perception of importance scores. 2. The perception of importance ratings were relatively stable on both professional public and community service and service-related activities with students scales, regardless of independent variable, while the overall means for extent of involvement differed considerably on the two scales. 3. The amount of variation in scores which could be accounted for by the independent variables on the extent of involvement scales was somewhat higher than the amount of variation in scores which could be accounted for by the independent variables on the perception of importance scales. 4. Faculty and academic staff members' extent of involvement in professional public and community service activities revealed a pattern of stronger relationship with their own perception of its importance than with any university practices which could have had an effect on such involvement. 5. College/unit affiliation was by far the strongest overall predictor of the four independent variables. 6. Those respondents who had been at MSU for 11-15 years scored consistently higher than any of the other longevity categories on every scale with only one exception, that being on the perception of importance of service-related activities with students scale. Conclusions From Analytical Questions Most of the conclusions which could be drawn from the patterns identified in this section have already been 185 presented in previous sections. The only additional conclusion which could be drawn from these patterns would be: 1) because respondents who have been at the university for 11-15 years were more involved in service activities and considered them more important than any other longevity category, they would be most likely to cooperate in any attempts by the university to strengthen the service component of the institutional mission. The purpose of identifying these important patterns in responses was to determine if any of the patterns would prove useful in developing recommendations to enhance achievement of service goals or in generating hypotheses for testing in further research. These recommendations and hypotheses are presented under "Implications of the Study" and "Recommendations for Further Research." Maior Findings From Definitional Question The final research question was open-ended and asked respondents to list specific examples of recent professional public and community service involvement as well as involvement in service-related activities with students. It was expected that responses to this open- ended question would yield an understanding of what faculty and academic staff members considered to be legitimate service activities. Approximately 46% of the respondents chose to complete this question. From their responses emerged the 186 following findings: 1. Responses were quite varied and indicated a broad range of activities which served the respondents' communities, the university and their professions. 2. A small but noticeable number of respondents indicated that their public and community service activities offered the opportunity to involve their students as well. 3. There was some confusion about what constituted public and community service and what did not. Also, most respondents did not or could not distinguish between activities which used professional expertise (public service) and those which were done as a private citizen (community service). 4. A small but noticeable number of respondents stated specifically that they were involved in service activities despite a lack of university or college support for such activities. Conclusions From Definitional Question Soliciting responses on an open-ended basis as this study did only served to identify the confusion which exists regarding what constitutes public and community service and what does not. The variety of responses to this question led the investigator to conclude that the expectation of developing an operational definition of public and community service for Michigan State University from responses was not met. In this regard, the need to clarify what constitutes public and community service still exists at MSU. The investigator would offer the definitions by Crosson outlined in Chapter I as appropriate for a land-grand institution such as Michigan 187 State University. Her definitions were as follows: 1) College or university service: committee or other governance activities internal to the department, college, school or campus related to program development and institutional policy; 2) Professional service: committee, editorial, or other work for national or regional professional associations and/or academic disciplines; 3) Public service: activities other than basic research and teaching involving direct relationships with groups external to the academic community (Crosson, 1983, p.5). In addition, the definition of community service outlined in Chapter I is offered for consideration: Community service: the voluntary performance of civic duties (or as the Carnegie Commission called them "citizen tasks") by faculty and academic staff as individual members of the community, which may or may not involve use of their professional expertise. Implications of the Study As a result of the major findings and conclusions drawn from this study, the investigator would offer the following recommendations for enhancing the achievement of the service goals of Michigan State University: 1. Capitalize upon the shared value regarding the importance of service activities which already is present university-wide. The perception of the importance of service appears to be well imbued among faculty and academic staff members and only needs encouragment from 188 the central administration, college deans, department chairs and unit heads for the extent of involvement in service activities to increase. 2. Encourage further development of the personal value of service by emphasizing and supporting the value service is given by the university. This emphasis and support on the part of the university should take the form of increased reward for faculty and academic staff members for being involved in service activities and increased recognition as well. 3. Efforts to encourage more involvement in service activities by increasing reward and recognition should be directed through the college deans, department chairs and unit heads. A determination also needs to be made at the dean and central administration level if there should be flexibility in how much weight is given to service activities college by college or if there should be application of a university-wide standard. 4. Utilize faculty and academic staff members who have been at the university for 11-15 years, are already tenured and have more access to university resources to serve as role models and possibly as mentors to younger faculty and academic staff members in service activities. 5. The central administration needs to make a concerted effort to create operational definitions of public service and of community service, clearly 189 differentiate the two, then work toward making all university policies and procedural documents consistent in their use and application of those definitions. Recommendations for Further Research Identification of important patterns in the results of this study have led the investigator to make the folowing hypotheses: 1. Expectations and constraints which faculty and academic staff members experience in their particular positions greatly condition the level of their participation in public and community service activities. Therefore, the investigator recommends that further study of MSU faculty and academic staff members' extent of involvement in service activities and their perception of the importance of such activities be undertaken, but at the departmental rather than college/unit level. 2. Extent of involvement in public and community service would be conditioned by such issues as how easily the academic subject matter of the department would lend itself to service involvement, how much weight service activities would be given in tenure and promotion considerations, and whether the department chair was perceived as favoring service involvement. 3. If such a study were undertaken at the departmental level at MSU, the perception of importance 190 of service activities would remain relatively stable, as it has done in the current study. Results from the current study indicated that there was a very tenuous relationship between university practices and a respondent's extent of involvement in service activities and even less of a relationship between university practices and the respondent's perception of the importance of service activities. Such findings suggest that further research needs to be done on what other factors are at work besides university practices which may have an effect on both extent of involvement and perception of importance of service activities. Analysis of variance results in the current study indicated that seldom did the four identified independent variables account for more than 20% of the variation in any particular dependant variable. This finding would suggest that further research would be in order, aimed at identifying what other independent variables may effect participation in service activities. If the current study were to be replicated in the future, the investigator would recommend the following changes be made. First, accurate and agreed upon definitions of public service, community service and service-related activities should be included in the questionnaire, in order to eliminate the confusion which 191 resulted in the current study. This action may also eliminate the need for the open-ended question. Secondly, full-time or part-time status should be eliminated as one of the independent variables since it was found not to be particularly applicable in the current study. Finally, the auxiliary questions in both the professional public and community service section and the service-related activities with students section should be eliminated since they did not provide information of particular importance to the study. Reflections Although this research project became much more complex than it was originally intended to be, nevertheless it led to some rather simple conclusions. Throughout the process of data collection and analysis, it became clear to the investigator that faculty and academic staff members at Michigan State University by and large had a genuine desire to serve their community, their profession and the university. It was, in fact, immensely gratifying to see the broad range of activities in which MSU faculty and academic staff members participate. These observations led the investigator to wonder what created or contributed to the underlying value given to service activities university-wide. Was it created in 192 part by a feeling of obligation on the part of faculty to give back to the state because they are employed at a public institution? Would any difference be found if this study were replicated at a private institution? How much (if any) of the shared value of service was generated by faculty members' belief in the traditional land-grant mission of the institution? Did the fact that the current provost came from one of the traditional land-grant colleges (Agriculture and Natural Resources) have any bearing on current faculty perceptions of the importance of service? While these questions are purely speculative, they are nonetheless intriguing. The other message that came through loud and clear from this study was the frustration faculty and academic staff members feel with the current reward system. Many believed strongly that participation in service activities was not adequately rewarded by the university. They expressed frustration with what they perceived as the radical difference between what the university officially says is important and what activities actually are rewarded. As one respondent expressed it, "I'd like to work in the kind of university that President DiBiaggio describes." While this problem is not unique to Michigan State University, it did prompt several questions in the investigator's mind. First, if service really were 193 rewarded adequately, how much more involved would MSU faculty and academic staff members be in service activities? Second, if an effort were made to bring more congruence between what is espoused and what is rewarded, which should change? Since research is currently what is rewarded, should the traditional land-grant mission of the institution be abandoned and changed to fit the research university mold? Or since teaching and service are also integral parts of the land-grant mission of the institution, should the reward structure be revamped to genuinely reflect involvement in all three? A strong argument would be made for the latter course of action by this investigator. As with almost all research, this investigation raised more questions that it answered. However, it did prove to be a genuinely challenging and informative project. APPENDICES APPENDIX A PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES OF ACADEMIC PERSONNEL AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY INTRODUCTION: T h is s u rv e y Is b e in g c o n d u c t e d b y t h e C a m p u s C o m p a c t/ P u b l ic a n d C o m m u n ity S e r v ic e C o m m itte e in o r d e r to a s s e s s fa c u lty a n d a c a d e m i c s ta f f in v o lv e m e n t in p u b lic a n d c o m m u n ity s e r v ic e a c tiv itie s . In a d d itio n , w e a r e in t e r e s te d in k n o w in g w h a t y o u d o in s u p p o r t o f s tu d e n t s in s e r v ic e - r e la te d a c tiv itie s . F inally, w e w o u ld like t o id e n tify U n iv e rsity p r a c tic e s w h ic h m a y a f f e c t fa c u lty in v o lv e m e n t in p u b lic a n d c o m m u n ity s e r v ic e a c tiv itie s . C o m p le tin g th is s u r v e y will ta k e o n ly a f e w m i n u te s o f y o u r tim e . T h a n k y o u in a d v a n c e fo r y o u r h e lp . Y o u r p a rtic ip a tio n in t h e s u rv e y is e n tir e ly v o lu n ta r y . Y o u r r e s p o n s e s a r e c o m p le te ly a n o n y m o u s a n d w ill n o t b e lin k ed t o y o u r n a m e o r u n iv e rs ity r e c o r d s In a n y w a y . P le a s e c o m p le te t h e q u e s tio n n a ir e a n d r e tu rn it in t h e e n c lo s e d e n v e lo p e t o t h e O F F IC E O F T H E P R E S ID E N T , 4 5 0 A D M IN IS T R A T IO N B U IL D IN G , b e f o r e N o v e m b e r 1, 1988. DIRECTIONS: W h e n y o u m a rk y o u r a n s w e r s , p le a s e b e s u r e t o . . . • U se a # 2 b la c k le a d p e n c il o n ly • M a k e h e a v y b la c k m a rk s t h a t fill t h e c irc le c o m p le te ly • E ra se a n y c h a n g e s c o m p le te ly • M a k e n o s tr a y m a r k s o n t h e a n s w e r s h e e t • U n le s s in d ic a te d o th e r w is e , p le a s e m a rk o n ly o n e a n s w e r p e r q u e s tio n SECTION I:BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. F o r h o w m a n y y e a rs h a v e y o u h e ld a n a c a d e m ic a p p o i n tm e n t a t M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n iv ersity ? 0 2. 3. C y e a r s ( ju s t b o g in i'iin g th is y ea r) 0 1-5 y e a rs 0 8 -1 0 y e a rs 0 1 1 -1 5 y e a rs 0 16 Or m o r e y e a rs Is y o u r a p p o i n tm e n t a t M S U fu ll-tim e o r p a rt- tim e f o r th e 1 9 8 8 -8 9 a c a d e m i c y e a r? Q F u ll-tim e 0 P a rt-tim e P le a s e in d ic a te t h e ty p e o f a p p o i n tm e n t y o u h o ld . (M A R K O N E O N L Y ). © F a c u lty m e m b e r —c u r re n tly te n u r e d 0 F a c u lty m e m b e r — n o t t e n u r e d b u t in th e te n u r e s tr e a m 0 F a c u lty m e m b e r — n o t t e n u r e d , n o t in th e te n u r e s tr e a m © S p e c i a li s t— h a v e jo b s e c u r i ty © S p e c i a li s t— d o n o t h a v e jo b s e c u rity 1 | | 8 I I I I I 1111 I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 11 11 | I | | | | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 4. 5. • • W h a t is y o u r a c a d e m ic ra n k ? © P ro fe sso r © A s s o c i a te P ro f e s s o r 0 A s s is ta n t P r o f e s s o r © I n s tr u c to r 0 S p e c ia lis t 0 O th e r (p le a s e s p e c i f y ) __________________________________ P le a s e Id e n tify t h e c o lle g e /d iv is io n in w h ic h y o u h o ld y o u r a p p o i n tm e n t. If a jo in t a p p o i n tm e n t, m a rk t h e o n e in w h ic h y o u h o ld t h e m a j o r r e s p o n s ib ility . (M A R K O N E O N L Y ). A g r ic u ltu re & N a t. R e s . © © S o c ia l S c i e n c e V e te r i n a r y M e d ic in e ® © A r ts a n d L e tte rs B u s in e s s C o m m u n ic a tio n A & S © © © © E d u c a tio n E n g in e e rin g © © © © H u m a n E c o lo g y © © © J a m e s M a d is o n © R e s e a rc h /G r a d . S tu d ie s N a tu ra l S c ie n c e © S t u d e n t A f f a ir s & S e r v . N u rs in g © O th e r © H u m a n M e d ic in e © U r b a n A f f a ir s & P r o g . C o o p e r a tiv e E d u c a ti o n C y c lo tr o n I n te r c o lle g ia t e A t h le tic s L ife lo n g E d u c a tio n P ro v o st O s t e o p a t h ic M e d ic in e SECTION II:PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES 6. M S U f a c u lty a n d a c a d e m i c s ta f f o f te n c o n t r ib u te th e ir tim e a n d e x p e r tis e in b o th p u b lic a n d c o m m u n ity s e r v ic e a c tiv itie s . L isted b e lo w a r e s o m e ty p ic a l e x a m p le s o f s u c h a c tiv itie s . T h e y in c lu d e : (a) a c tiv itie s c o n s id e r e d a s p a r t o f y o u r w o r k lo a d , (b) a c tiv itie s a p a r t fro m y o u r a c k n o w le d g e d lo a d * a n d , Ic) c o m ­ m u n ity s e n /i c e a c tiv itie s . • B e c a u s e u n iv e r s ity d o c u m e n ts t a k e a v a ria b le s t a n d o n t h e ro le o f p r iv a te c o n s u ltin g , it h a s b e e n in c lu d e d h e r e . In th e c o lu m n o n t h e l e f t , p le a s e in d ic a te y o u r d e g r e e o f i n v o l v e m e n t in th e a c tiv ity d u r in g th e p r e s e n t a c a d e m ic y e a r. In t h e c o lu m n o n th e r i g h t , p le a s e in d ic a te w h a t y o u b e lie v e is its d e a r e e o f I m p o r t a n c e a s a p r o f e s s i o n a l a c tiv ity . • H ig h d e g r e e o f i n v o l v e m e n t / i m p o r t a n c e s M o d e ra te d e g r e e of in v o lv e m e n t/im p o r ta n c e 2 L ow d e g r e e o f in v o lv e m e n t/im p o r ta n c e i N o in v o l v e m e n t; d o e s n o t a p p l y / n o t i m p o r t a n t a t all ©®®o A s p a r t o f m y w o r k lo a d , ta k e m y e x p e r tis e a n d a p p ly ®©@© it in a o n e - s h o t p r o je c t fo r a p r i v a t e o r g a n iz a tio n . ©®©o A s p a r t o f m y w o r k lo a d , t a k e m y e x p e r t i s e a n d a p p ly ©©©© it in a n o n - g o i n g p r o je c t f o r a p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a ti o n . ©©©© A s p a r t o f m y w o r k lo a d , ta k e m y e x p e r tis e a n d a p p ly ©®®0 it in a o n a - s h o t p r o je c t f o r a p u b l i c o r g a n iz a tio n . ©©©© ©®®0 A s p a r t o f m y w o r k lo a d , ta k e m y e x p e r tis e a n d a p p ly it in a n o n - g o i n g p r o je c t fo r a p u b l i c o r g a n iz a tio n . ©®®0 S e r v e o n d e p a rt m e n t a l, c o lle g e a n d / o r u n iv e rs ity - ©©©© w id e c o m m it te e s . 195 • • © 0 ©© B e c o m e in v o lv e d ( b e y o n d ju s t b e in g a m e m b e r ) in a s t a t e a n d / o r n a tio n a l p r o f e s s io n a l o r g a n iz a tio n . ®0®0 ©0©O A p a r t fr o m m y a c k n o w l e d g e d lo a d , ta k e m y e x p e r tis e ®0©O © 0 ©© A p a r t f r o m m y a c k n o w l e d g e d lo a d , ta k e m y e x p e r tis e a n d a p p ly it in a o n e - s h o t p r o je c t f o r a p r i v a t e o r g a n iz a tio n , fo r w h ic h I r e c e iv e p e r s o n a l p a y m e n t. ©0©O a n d a p p ly it in a n o n - g o i n g p r o je c t f o r a p r i v a t e o r g a n iz a tio n , fo r w h ic h I r e c e iv e p e r s o n a l p a y m e n t. ©0®O A p a r t fr o m m y a c k n o w l e d g e d lo a d , ta k e m y e x p e rtis e ©@@© a n d a p p ly it in a o n e - s h o t p r o je c t f o r a p u b l i c o r g a n iz a tio n , fo r w h ic h I r e c e iv e p e r s o n a l p a y m e n t. ©@@© A p a r t fr o m m y a c k n o w l e d g e d lo a d , t s k e m y e x p e rtis e ©@©0 a n d a p p ly it in a n o n - g o i n g p r o je c t f o r a p u b l i c o r g a n iz a tio n , fo r w h ic h I r e c e iv e p e r s o n a l p a y m e n t. ©®©o In v o lv e m e n t in a n d c o n tr ib u tio n o f m y s e r v ic e s t o ©0©O lo c a l, s t a t e o r n a tio n a l c iv ic /s e r v ic e o r g a n iz a tio n s . ©0®O I n v o lv e m e n t in lo c a l o r s t a t e i n i tia tiv e s f o r t h e b e t t e r ­ ®0®O m e n t o f t h e c o m m u n i t y , i.e . e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n c e r n s , p o litic a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , le g is la t io n , e t c . ®@®o 7. O th e r ( p le a s e e x p l a i n ) __________________________________ ®@®0 If y o u a r e in v o lv e d a t ail in p u b lic a n d c o m m u n ity s e r v ic e a c tiv itie s , p le a s e ind ic a te w h ic h o f t h e s e r e s p o n s e s is m o s t tr u e fo r y o u : (M A R K O N E O N L Y ) Q 1 a m s a tis f ie d w ith m y le v e l o f in v o lv e m e n t in p u b lic a n d c o m m u n ity s e rv ic e . ® ® 1 w o u ld like t o g e t m o r e in v o lv e d in p u b lic a n d c o m ­ m m u n ity s e r v ic e a c tiv itie s . = I a n t i c i p a t e t h a t m y f u t u r e in v o l v e m e n t in p u b li c a n d m c o m m u n i t y s e r v i c e w ill d e c r e a s e . - If y o u a r e n o t in v o lv e d in a n y p u b lic a n d c o m m u n ity s e r v ic e a c tiv itie s , p le a s e in d ic a te w h y : ( c h e c k A L L t h a t a p p ly ) - Q M y w o r k lo a d is to o h e a v y to a llo w fo r in v o lv e m e n t. m ® P u b lic s e rv ic e d o e s n o t r e c e iv e e n o u g h c o n s id e r a tio n in te n u r e /p r o m o t io n d e c is io n s . ® T h e r e a r e n o re le v a n t p r o je c ts a t t h e p r e s e n t tim e . wm m wm © 0 1 a m n o t in t e r e s te d in g e t tin g in v o lv e d . O th e r (p le a s e d e s c rib e ) wm ® D o e s n o t a p p ly 3 196 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 • • SECTION III:SERVICE-RELATED ACTIVITIES AS LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS 9. O p p o rtu n itie s f o r s t u d e n t s t o p a r tic ip a te in e x p e rie n tia l le a rn in g s itu a tio n s o f te n in v o lv e s e rv ic e -r e la te d a c tiv itie s . L iste d b e lo w a r e a n u m b e r o f s u c h o p p o r tu n itie s . In t h e c o lu m n o n t h e l e f t , p le a s e in d ic a te y o u r d e g r e e o f i n v o l v e m e n t w ith s t u d e n t s in e a c h a c tiv ity d u r in g th e c u rre n t a c a d e m ic y e a r . In t h e c o lu m n o n t h e r i g h t , p le a s e in d ic a te its d e g r e e o f i m p o r t a n c e a s a le a r n in g o p p o r tu n ity fo r s tu d e n t s 4 H ig h d e g r e e o f i n v o l v e m e n t / i m p o r t a n c e I M o d e r a t e d e g r e e of i n v o l v e m e n t / i m p o r t a n c e i L ow d e g r e e o f in v o lv e m e n t/im p o rta n c e i N o in v o lv e m e n t; d o e s n o t a p p l y / n o t i m p o r t a n t a t a ll ©©©© FIELO S T U D Y IA le a rn in g e x p e rie n c e a r r a n g e d b y a n ©®@© in s tr u c to r f o r a s t u d e n t to c a rr y o u t a p r o je c t o u ts id e t h e c la s s r o o m b y o b s e r v a tio n , p a r tic ip a tio n in a w o rk e x p e rie n c e o r fie ld re s e a r c h ) ©©©© IN T E R N S H IP (P r o f e s s io n a l a c tiv ity u n d e r g e n e ra l s u p e rv is io n o f a n e x p e rie n c e d p ro f e s s io n a l, w ith a ®©@© h ig h d e g r e e o f r e s p o n s ib ility p la c e d o n th e s tu d e n t ; In v o lv e s p la c e m e n t a s a p r o f e s s io n a l in a jo b o r jo b ­ like s itu a tio n ) ©©©© P R A C T IC U M (A g r a d u a t e lev el in te r n s h ip u n d e r th e ©©©© d ire c tio n o f a fa c u lty m e m b e r w ith e q u iv a le n t o r h ig h e r d e g r e e ) ©©©© IN D E P E N D E N T S T U D Y (H ig h ly In d iv id u alized ©©©© p la n n e d s t u d y w h ic h is n o t a d d r e s s a b le th r o u g h a n y o th e r f o r m a t) ©©©© C O U R S E M O D IF IC A T IO N (A le a rn in g e x p e r ie n c e w h ic h is a r r a n g e d b y th e c la s s in s tr u c to r in w h ic h a ®®@® s tu d e n t c a rr ie s o u t a p r o je c t a s a r e q u ire d a s s ig n m e n t o r a s a n a lte r n a tiv e f o r a c la s s r e q u ire m e n t) ©©©© C LIN IC A L E X PER IEN C E ( O b s e rv a tio n a n d p r a c t ic e in ©©@0 p r o fe s s io n a l s e ttin g u n d e r th e s u p e r v is io n o f a n e x ­ p e r ie n c e d p r o f e s s io n a l, i.e . e x te r n , s tu d e n t te a c h in g ) ©©©© C R O S S -C U L T U R A L EX PERIEN C E ( S tu d e n t in v o lv e ­ ©®@© m e n t in a n o t h e r c u ltu r e o r s u b - c u ltu r e o f h i s / h e r o w n s o c ie ty in a d e e p a n d s ig n ific a n t w a y ) ©©©© S E R V IC E /L E A R N IN G (E x p e rie n c e w h ic h m e e ts a real ©®©Q o r e s ta b lis h e d n e e d w h ile s u p p o r tin g t h e s t u d e n t 's c a re e r - r e la te d o r a c a d e m ic n e e d s ) ©©©© ©®©0 C O -O P E D U C A T IO N (P aid w o rk e x p e r ie n c e fo r a s t u ­ d e n t in a s p e c ific c a r e e r fie ld , i.e . te c h n ic a l) CA R EER O R SER V IC E R ELATED C L U B OR ©©©© ©©©© O R G A N IZ A T IO N (A d v isin g a n a c tiv ity in th e c o ­ c u r ric u lu m , i.e . s e rv ic e h o n o r a r y , c lu b o r fu n d -ra is in g e v e n t) ©®®0 O T H E R ( P le a s e d e s c r ib e b riefly) 197 ©©©© 10. O v e ra ll, a p p r o x im a te ly H O W M A N Y s t u d e n t s d o y o u a s s is t In a ty p ic a l a c a d e m i c y e a r ( S e p t e m b e r - J u n e ) w h o a r e e n g a g e d in s e r v ic e - r e la te d a c tiv itie s ? 0 n o s t u d e n t s ; d o e s n o t a p p ly 0 1 - 1 2 s tu d e n ts 0 1 3 - 2 4 s tu d e n ts 0 2 5 - 4 9 s tu d e n ts 11 . 0 5 0 - 7 4 s tu d e n ts 0 7 5 - 9 9 s tu d e n ts 0 1 0 0 o r m o r e s tu d e n t s If y o u d o a s s i s t s t u d e n t s in v o lv e d in s e rv ic e - r e la te d a c tiv itie s , a r e th e y p rim a rily : 0 u n d e r g r a d u a ta 0 g ra d u a te b o th 0 0 d o e s n o t a p p ly 12. H o w m a n y c r e d it h o u r s to w a r d a n u n d e r g r a d u a t e d e g r e e s h o u ld a s t u d e n t b e a llo w e d t o e a r n th r o u g h s e r v ic e - r e la te d a c tiv itie s ? 13. 0 n o n e ; n o c re d it h o u rs ® 7 -9 c re d it h o u rs 0 1 - 3 c r e d it h o u r s 0 1 0 -1 2 c re d it h o u rs 0 4 - 6 c re d it h o u rs © 1 3 -1 5 c re d it h o u rs H o w m a n y c r e d it h o u r s to w a r d a g r a d u a t e d e g r e e s h o u ld a s t u d e n t b e a llo w e d to e a r n th r o u g h s e r v ic e - r e la te d a c tiv itie s ? '© n o n e ; n o c r e d i t h o u rs 0 1 - 3 c re d it h o u rs 0 4 - 6 c r e d it h o u r s 0 7 - 9 c r e d it h o u r s 0 1 0 - 1 2 c r e d it h o u r s 0 1 3 - 1 5 c r e d it h o u r s SECTION IV: INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES WHICH AFFECT PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES 14. M S U f a c u lty a n d a c a d e m i c s ta f f w h o a r e in v o lv e d in p u b lic a n d c o m m u n ity s e r ­ v ic e a c tiv itie s o r s u p p o r t s e r v ic e - r e la te d le a r n in g o p p o r tu n itie s fo r s t u d e n t s o f te n fin d t h a t t h e r e a r e in s titu tio n a l p r a c t ic e s w h ic h m a y a f f e c t s u c h in v o lv e m e n t. U sin g t h e s c a l e b e lo w , p le a s e in d i c a t e v o u r a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e p r a c t ic e s liste d . < T h is is o f t e n t h e c a s e i T h is Is s o m e t im e s t h e c a s e ] T h is is ra re ly t h e c a s e i T h is is n e v e r t h e c a s e ©000 I r e c e iv e fin a n c ia l c o m p e n s a ti o n fr o m th e U n iv e rs ity f o r p u b lic a n d c o m m u n ity s e rv ic e ©00© I a m g iv e n a r e d u c e d c o u r s e l o a d /w o r k lo a d o r re le a s e tim e f o r p u b lic a n d c o m m u n ity s e r v ic e ©000 P u b lic a n d c o m m u n ity s e r v ic e r e c e iv e c o n s id e r a tio n in te n u r e , p r o m o tio n d e c is io n s ©000 P u b lic a n d c o m m u n ity s e r v ic e r e c e iv e o ffic ial r e c o g n i­ tio n b y m y d e p a r t m e n t / s c h o o l c h a ir p e r s o n , d e a n o r s u p e r v is o r ©00© M y c o l le a g u e s s u p p o r t m y in v o lv e m e n t in p u b lic a n d c o m m u n it y s e rv ic e a c tiv itie s 198 111111111111111111111111i11111111111111111111111111II1111111111 0000 ©000 G r a d u a te a s s is ta n t a n d / o r s u p p o r t s ta f f h e lp is a v a ila b le t o m e f o r s e r v ic e - r e la te d a c tiv itie s U n iv e rs ity tr a n s p o r t a ti o n is a v a ila b le t o m e fo r s e r v ic e - re la te d a c tiv itie s ©00O A d e q u a t e a n d a p p r o p r i a te m e e ti n g /c la s s r o o m s p a c e ©©©© O th e r (p le a s e s p e c i f y ) __________________________________ is a v a ila b le to m e f o r s e r v ic e - r e la te d a c tiv itie s SECTION V: SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES 15. P le a s e u s e t h e s p a c e b e lo w to d e s c r ib e s p e c if ic p u b lic a n d c o m m u n ity s e r v ic e a c tiv itie s in w h ic h y o u h a v e b e e n e n g a g e d d u r in g th e p a s t y e a r, b o th p e r s o n a lly a n d w ith /fo r s tu d e n ts . A G A IN , T H A N K Y O U F O R T A K IN G T H E T IM E T O FILL O U T T H IS S U R V E Y . Y O U R A N S W E R S W IL L R E M A IN STR IC TL Y A N O N Y M O U S . P L E A S E R E T U R N TH E C O M P L E T E D S U R V E Y IN T H E E N V ELO PE P R O V ID E D T O T H E O F F IC E O F THE P R E S ID E N T , 4 5 0 A D M IN IS T R A T IO N B U ILD IN G , BY N O V E M B E R 1, 1988. 6 199 APPENDIX B ADVANCE LETTER M IC H IG A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y EAST L AN SIN G • M ICH IG A N « 4M 14 IIHA O FFICE O F THE PRESIDENT September 1 2 , 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: MSU Feculty and Academic Staff FROM: John DIBlaggio, President SUBJ: Public and Community Service Survey In about three weeks we will be circulating a survey to you in order to assess faculty and academic staff attitudes toward and Involvement in public and community service activities. The purpose of the survey is to develop a comprehensive picture of the importance of public and community service to MSU academic personnel and what you do in support of this part of our land-grant mission. This information will be important to give us a baseline assessment of faculty Involvement and attitudes before a proposed major review of public service is undertaken during the 1989-90 academic year. In order to provide the most comprehensive data possible, we have chosen to survey all faculty and academic staff, as was done with the CRUE survey last year. The broadest possible participation is needed to give us an accurate picture of current attitudes and practices. Your help and cooperation will be greatly appreciated. As a part of the survey, we are also requesting information about your uuppurc for students in their involvement in service-related activities. As a national leader in student voluntary and community service involve­ ment, MSU provides numerous opportunities for students to integrate their classroom learning with practical experience. Finally, the survey will ask about University practices that either encourage or discourage faculty involvement in public and community service. We are Interested in identifying problem areas that may then be addressed in the proposed comprehensive review in 1989-90. The Campus Compact/Public and Community Service Committee (a subcommittee of the Career Planning and Placement Council) developed the survey. The summaries of responses will be shared with the committee in some detail so that they might make recommendations for possible changes through the appropriate channels. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, JD:ca M S U iitn H r tf c a /B f uM O ffo rlu m l) Hullluton 200 APPENDIX C COVER LETTER M IC H IG A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y EAST L AN SIN G • M IC H IG A N • U U ' IM A O rn C E OF THE PRESIDENT October 10, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: MSU Faculty and Academic Staff FROM: John DIBlagglo, President SUBJ: Public and Community Service Survey In.an effort to assess faculty attitudes toward and Involvement In public and community service, we are sending the enclosed questionnaire to you. The purpose of the survey Is to develop a comprehensive picture of the Importance of public and community service to MSU academic personnel and what you do In support of this part of our land-grant mission. In addition to providing this baseline assessment, we hope to Identify possible con­ cerns which can then be addressed when a proposed major review of public service Is undertaken during the 1989-90 academic year. In order to yield the most comprehensive data possible, we have chosen to survey all faculty and academic Btaff, as was done with the CRUE survey last year. The broadest possible participation Is needed to give us an accurate picture of current attitudes and practices. Your help and cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Your participation In the survey Is voluntary. Should youchoose to partici­ pate, please complete and return the survey In the envelope provided. Your responses will not be linked to your name or university records in any way. Only aggregate data will be used in reporting survey results. Dr. Marylee Davis, my Executive Assistant, and her graduate assistant are the only ones authorized to have access to the entire data in detail. In order to monitor progress and avoid duplication in mailing our follow-up materials, we are enclosing a postcard which you should return separately from your completed survey. There is a place to check on the card if you would like a summary of the results. After all the surveys have been received, the cards will be destroyed so there will be no record of who participated In the survey. Based on experience from pilot testing this survey, it should take only about 15-20 minutes of your time. For many of you It will take even less, since not all sections of the survey will be applicable to each of you. Pleaee complete the survey ae eoon ae p o ssib le and return i t in the enclosed self-a d d ressed envelope. If you have any questions or any of the necessary materials are missing, please feel free to call 5-6560 for assistance. Thank you In advance for your time and cooperation. JD:Ca MSU It m A/lirmoltirn Action/S^nn! Opportunity Intlttultott 201 APPENDIX D SAMPLE RETURN POSTAL CARD Please return this postcard AFTER you have completed and returned the Public and Community Service survey to the Office of the President. □ If you would be interested in receiving a summary of the survey results, please check the box at the left. T HANK YOU ONCE A G A I N FOR YOUR HELP A N D COOPERATION. 0-17885 OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Attn: Dr. Marylee Davis Executive Assistant to the President and Secretary of the Board of Trustees 450 Administration Building CAMPUS 202 APPENDIX E FOLLOW-UP LETTER M IC H IG AN STATE U N IV E R S I T Y OFFICE OF T H E PEESIDENT EAST LAN SIN G • M ICH IG AN • 4M J4.IIH A October 24, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: MSU Faculty and Academic Staff FROM: Marylee Davis, Ph.D. Executive Assistant to the'T^esident and Secretary of the Board of Trustees SUBJ: Public and Community Service Survey About two weeks ago you should have received In campus nail a copy of the Public and Community Service Survey, accompanied by a letter of explanation and Instructions from President DiBlagglo. According to our records, we have not yet received the return postcard telling us that you have completed and returned the survey. Of course it Is possible that the card was misplaced or lost and you have in fact returned your survey. If this is the case, would you please give us a call at 5-6560 and let us know so we will not need to contact you again needlessly. If you have not yet completed the survey, w o n ’t you take the time right now to complete it? Your participation Is needed to provide us with an accurate assessment of faculty and staff attitudes toward public and community service sr.d your involvcuieiii in service-related activities. If you did not receive a copy of the survey or have mislaid It , please feel free to call us here at 5-6560 and we will send you another copy as soon as possible. I can attest to the value placed on service-related activities on this campus. We are very proud to be among the nation's leaders In this area. However, we do not yet have concrete data to share with other institutions regarding the extent of our faculty's Involvement in public and community service. This survey will help to supply us with concrete data. Thank you for taking the time to complete and return your Public and Community Service Survey. MLD:ca MSU It m iV ftrm n lvt Atlhnl/EfitM O p p a n m il) I v l l M h n 203 APPENDIX F Table 25 Results From Analysis of Variance For Descriptive Questions Question 1 Involvement: Overall Scale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (13.88%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 718.585 83.413 560.571 6545.855 10889.192 67590.254 78479.446 Involvement: Workload,One-Shot,Private by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (8.17%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 4.335 .760 6.520 88.140 114.385 1284.401 1398.785 Involvement: Workload,Ongoing,Private by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (6.23%) Residual Total Sum of Squares .295 1.639 10.258 84.373 102.070 1536.168 1638.237 Involvement: Workload,One-Shot,Public by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (13.32%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 6.260 3.867 12.858 196.703 253.680 1650.784 1904.464 Involvement: Workload,Ongoing,Public by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (14.32%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 7.158 5.441 5.960 265.361 334.304 1999.451 2333.754 204 205 Involvement: MSU Committees by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation (20.58%) Explained Residual Total Sum of Squares 15.007 17.004 31.500 77.090 350.416 1352.425 1702.841 Involvement: Professional Organiz. by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (9.83%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 23.822 6.113 22.624 78.003 201.045 1843.005 2044.050 Involvement: Cnsltng,One-Shot,Private by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (7.88%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 5.249 1.985 7.684 37.759 83.826 979.301 1063.128 Involvement: Cnsltng,Ongoing,Private by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (6.12%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 2.872 2.890 4.731 27.693 60.013 921.124 981.137 Involvement: Cnsltng,One-Shot,Public by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (7.20%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 4.589 1.063 7.252 39.600 79.639 1027.973 1107.612 206 Involvement: Cnsltng,Ongoing, Public by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (5.76%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 5.052 1.000 6.574 36.927 68.671 1123.333 1192.004 Involvement: Civic Organizations by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (8.98%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 13.772 6.282 .909 100.727 164.918 1671.684 1836.602 Involvement: Betterment Initiatives by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (8.48%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 21.899 2.280 9.589 67.429 150.957 1629.592 1780.549 Involvement: Private Only Subscale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliati on Explained (7.15%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 29.568 14.211 88.236 589.845 832.698 10804.074 11636.773 Involvement: Public Only Subscale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (11.65%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 70.193 12.612 91.794 1341.130 1739.252 13188.172 14927.423 207 Involvement: One-Shot Only Subscale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (9.26%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 66.948 2.568 100.135 739.007 1083.000 10616.960 10699.960 Involvement: Ongoing Only Subscale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (9.41%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 36.538 8.509 70.617 855.887 1116.468 10753.776 11870.244 Involvement: Workload Only Subscale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (14.73%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 56.127 4.808 97.220 1970.549 2539.350 14696.199 17235.549 Involvement: Consulting Only Subscale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (8.88%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 53.262 15.398 77.141 414.184 967.221 9920.612 10887.834 Question 2 Importance: Overall Scale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (5.73%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 366.766 36.015 123.496 4601.762 5224.335 85883.799 91108.134 208 Importance: Workload ,One-Shot,Private by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (4.17%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 1.367 2.158 3.354 50.798 63.133 1451.802 1514.934 Importance: Workload,Ongoing,Private by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (4.58%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 4.056 1.857 3.722 65.094 74.855 1560.441 1635.296 Importance: Workload,One-Shot,Public by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (5.76%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 9.282 2.543 4.502 56.611 87.545 1431.205 1518.750 Importance: Workload,Ongoing,Public by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (9.90%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 7.925 1.341 2.237 133.036 154.949 1410.519 1565.468 Importance: MSU Committees by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (2.74%) Residual Total Sum of Squares .967 2.149 3.170 20.212 33.576 1192.222 1225.798 209 Importance: Professional Organizations by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (4.06%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 4.219 1.509 8.930 35.398 51.015 1205.792 1256.807 Importance: Cnsltng,One-shot,Private by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (4.74%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 3.896 2.763 8.961 39.299 65.704 1320.718 1386.422 Importance: Cns1tng,Ongoing,Private by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (5.45%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 6.334 2.002 6.364 45.287 75.667 1312.026 1387.693 Importance: Cnsltng,One-Shot,Public by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (5.91%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 2.515 1.206 8.601 46.111 89.034 1416.686 1505.720 Importance: Cnsltng,Ongoing,Public by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (6.83%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 5.730 2.619 7.342 63.980 110.905 1513.882 1624.787 210 Importance: Civic Organizations by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (6.90%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 4.565 4.692 2.998 71.997 106.489 1437.562 1544.050 Importance: Betterment Initiatives by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (7.56%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 8.763 4.783 16.686 62.207 127.275 1555.455 1682.730 Importance: Private Only Subscale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (4.34%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 44.810 12.764 48.571 548.027 663.893 14626.725 15290.618 Importance: Public Only Subscale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affi1iation Explained (6.24%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 90.076 13.065 57.983 763.816 959.707 14432.008 15391.715 Importance: One-Shot Only Subscale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (3.99%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 58.072 5.032 47.676 442.271 559.978 13482.882 14042.860 211 Importance: Ongoing Only Subscale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (6.40%) Residual Total Sum of Sguares 68.705 7.677 29.773 750.202 895.401 13100.625 13995.666 Importance: Workload Only Subscale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (6.57%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 57.360 4.365 15.678 902.956 1075.068 15288.562 16363.630 Importance: Consulting Only Subscale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (6.35%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 73.673 28.992 102.564 579.271 1115.744 16467.845 17583.588 Question 3 Involvement: Overall Scale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (10.62%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 417.237 35.928 528.742 3296.915 7111.273 59876.075 66987.348 Involvement: Field Study by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (8.76%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 9.386 1.240 7.853 120.401 179.644 1872.166 2051.810 212 Involvement: Internship by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (9.42%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 9.050 4.641 18.365 141.548 204.981 1969.278 2174.259 Involvement: Practicum by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (8.50%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 15.173 5.791 16.658 95.834 168.814 1816.891 1985.705 Involvement: Independent Study by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (15.36%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 13.203 7.591 17.791 104.841 311.440 1716.117 2027.557 Involvement: Course Modification by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank Sum of Squares 10.798 1.965 6.988 44=243 148.070 1432.989 1581.059 Col 1 /Tlni t- AF-fi 1 i a-M on Explained Residual Total (9.36%) Involvement: Clinical Experience by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (27.7%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 1.723 3.130 15.628 473.371 577.379 1506.821 2084.200 213 Involvement: Cross-Cultural Experience by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (6.29%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 4.154 5.059 4.246 62.476 94.000 1399.390 1493.390 Involvement: Service Learning by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (7.59%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 4.209 9.967 3.759 87.026 129.940 1582.348 1712.288 Involvement: Co-op Education by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (3.48%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 2.372 1.824 .679 25.094 33.555 930.407 963.962 Involvement: Career or Service ClUb by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (5.97%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 6.443 1.486 14.321 56.233 80.902 1272.883 1353.784 Question 4 Importance: Overall Scale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (9.71%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 933.250 774.273 765.687 7700.169 11283.624 104940.270 116223.894 214 Importance: Field Study by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (8.81%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 11.358 6.678 6.781 121.550 149.783 1549.740 1699.522 Importance: Internship by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (11.39%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 21.980 17.878 26.125 135.359 197.756 1538.321 1736.078 Importance: Practicum by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (8.16%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 17.994 7.581 8.647 111.645 163.863 1843.975 2007.838 Importance: Independent Study by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (6.73%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 8.780 11.081 21.298 55.426 98.313 1361.566 1459.879 Importance: Course Modification by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (3.76%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 7.144 2.356 7.692 40.785 62.072 1588.049 1650.121 215 Importance: Clinical Experience by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (16.07%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 6.583 8.628 3.930 311.027 370.605 1936.122 2306.727 Importance: Cross-Cultural Experience by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (10.50%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 10.253 14.742 20.666 158.537 211.412 1802.989 2014.402 Importance: Service Learning by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (9.98%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 8.245 10.106 13.505 107.069 175.018 1579.161 1754.179 Importance: Co-op Education by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (7.60%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 11.197 6.126 7.191 83.199 140.454 1707.822 1848.276 Importance: Career or Service Club by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (7.71%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 1.354 7.050 5.166 90.994 120.623 1444.653 1565.275 216 Question 5 Institutional Practices: Overall Scale by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (6.06%) Residual Total Sum of Sguares 384.884 235.631 99.399 2039.968 2855.049 44218.916 47073.965 Institutional Practices: Financial Compensation by Sum of Squares 6.190 Longevity Appointment Type 7.391 Academic Rank 5.380 66.203 College/Unit Affiliation Explained (5.99%) 91.238 Residual 1430.747 Total 1521.985 Institutional Practices: Release Time by Longevity Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation Explained (4.37%) Residual Total Sum of Squares 5.055 .271 .524 28.502 35.121 767.884 803.005 Institutional Practices: Tenure Consideration by Sum of Squares 9.688 Longevity Appointment Type 8.338 Academic Rank 6.563 College/Unit Affiliation 51.284 Explained (5.70%) 89.439 Residual 1480.578 1570.016 Total Institutional Practices: Official Recognition by Sum of Squares Longevity 7.169 Appointment Type 2.859 Academic Rank 5.432 College/Unit Affiliation 45.816 Explained (3.49%) 60.257 Residual 1668.022 Total 1728.279 217 Institutional Practices: Colleague Support by Sum of Squares Longevity 8.593 Appointment Type 14.526 Academic Rank 11.182 College/Unit Affiliation 81.140 Explained (7.51%) 131.947 Residual 1625.629 Total 1757.575 Institutional Practices: Grad. Ass't., Staff Support by Sum of Squares Longevity .936 Appointment Type 4.491 Academic Rank 3.454 College/Unit Affiliation 32.402 Explained (3.30%) 42.769 Residual 1254.605 Total 1297.375 Institutional Practices: University Transportation by Sum of Squares Longevi ty 10.406 Appointment Type 14.160 Academic Rank 9.620 College/Unit Affiliation 72.653 Explained (6.13%) 108.138 Residual 1656.497 Total 1764.635 Institutional Practices: Adequate Space Sum of Squares by Longevity 11.702 Appointment Type 5.727 Academic Rank 8.339 College/Unit Affiliation 69.269 Explained (5.09%) 102.279 Residual 1907.096 Total 2009.375 Appendix G Table 26 Summary of Findings: Comparison of Means and Correlation Coefficients Item Score Comparison of Means Professional Involvement to Importance* Longevity at MSU 11.29 Appointment Type 11.31 Academic Rank 11.23 College/Unit Affiliation 11.29 ♦Based on 39 point scale Student Involvement to Importance ** Longevity at MSU Appointment Type Academic Rank College/Unit Affiliation ♦♦Based on 33 point scale Correlation Coefficients— Overall Means# Prof. Involvement to Importance Stu. Involvement to Importance Involvement to Involvement Importance to Importance Univ. Practices to Prof. Involvement Univ. Practices to Prof. Importance # (p<.001) 6.98 7.05 7.04 6.98 16.87 16.87 16.83 16.85 16.79 16.80 16.82 16.77 .5159 .3681 .4346 .4378 .2641 .1669 Correlation Coefficients— by Colleae/Unit Affiliation# Prof. Involvement to Importance .9059 Stu. Involvement to Importance .7294 Involvement to Involvement .2181 Importance to Importance .7012 Univ. Practices to Prof. Involvement .6868 Univ. Practices to Prof. Importance .6559 § (p<.001) 218 APPENDIX H REPRESENTATIVE LISTING OF SERVICE ACTIVITIES Workload f Private Press interviews regarding corporate and tax-related news items Adviser to local clubs dealing with natural history Developing a set of training materials and serving as a resource person on program evaluation for not-forprofit agencies Serve on Board of Directors of a bank Serve on editorial boards of two journals National and international programs research and extension on commodity production Initiating union-based drug, alcohol and mental health programs Board of Directors of a local organization to promote youth baseball in Greater Lansing Child Abuse Prevention Society - Board of Directors Chairman of editorial board of professional journal Member of the Board of Directors of the Lansing Symphony Orchestra Adjudicator for various musical competitions Author of numerous articles and three books for national professional association (no royalties) Accreditation visitor Board member, World Medical Relief Selected to settle labor disputes and medical malpractice disputes Serve as an officer in a local cultural organization Grant proposal review for National Science Foundation Director of a pre-natal screening program with educational outreach to the Michigan community Staff and monitor a blood pressure clinic Workload. Public Testifying before state legislative committees Presentation to City of East Lansing employees In-service for Flint Public Schools East Lansing Public Library presentation Directorship of state-wide high school academic competition Clinics and evaluation of dozens of public school musical organizations Working with local school districts science curriculum 219 220 Supervise MSU faculty/staff in international training experiences Community school classes on financial management Nutritional education with Health Department Agriculture and Natural Resources public policy educational activities, i.e. master gardener program County Planning Commission Facilities Committee of local school Educational tours of the Kellogg Bird Sanctuary Telephone answering service for natural history questions Public information articles for newspapers and magazines Worked with State Safety Commission on traffic safety Assisted Haslett Community Schools in recreation planning and preparation of grant Designing a nutritional surveillance plan for the State of Michigan Assisting Ingham County Health Department in the nutritional assessment of obese children and adolescents Involved in an effort to preserve a tract of Lake Michigan dune land through the State Department of Natural Resources Serve on a major federal panel dealing with environmental issues in the tropics Training seminars for University of Michigan on crosscultural communication Served on advisory board for Michigan Women's Commission Member of Michigan State Planning Council for Developmental Disabilities Member of Board for Michigan League for Human Services Involved with ongoing state-wide research on home health care for cancer patients Presentations to members of local emergency planning commissions on Title III - Community Right to Know Volunteer as Ingham County Cancer fund raiser Serve on State Department of Education ad hoc committees Serve on a state board - appointed by the governor Michigan Enterprise Zone Authority Work in Animal Health Diagnostic Laboratory Federal agency research review team Jurying student art exhibitions at other institutions Theatre in Education Project, Lansing Public Schools Workshops and seminars for staff at various hospitals Patient care in public clinics and health care services to disadvantaged populations Consultation with school districts on AIDS and communicable disease policies In-service training workshops for public school teachers Parent education workshops Research on food security in Zimbabwe Michigan Air Pollution Control Commission County Career Fair Coordinators Association 221 Consulting. Private Arbitrator for American Arbitration Association Serving as a consultant to Kellogg Foundation Contract“researcher Provide business/technical assessment for over 130 small/medium sized Michigan businesses Teaching corporate staff about news organizations Private teacher to area cello students Consultation with farmers, industry people and installers related to irrigation Environmental workshop for school teachers Consulting. Public Environmental education consulting for school site development Consultant on organizational and personnel problems to staffs of County Extension offices Consult with State Police and other law enforcement agencies in the Midwest in the area of human remains identi f ication Contract with State of Michigan Attorney General's office as expert witness for Medicaid fraud case Paid consultant to a city department Paid consultant to a regional planning commission Consultation with the Children's Trust Fund of Michigan Serve on local school board MSU Committees Professional Organizations Society of Women Engineers National Association of Women Deans, Administrators and Counselors (NAWDAC) Michigan Association for Adult and Continuing Education American Bar Association subcommittee of Tax Section American Association of University Women (AAUW) Ingham County Medical Association Physicians for Social Responsibility Michigan Women's Studies Association National Women's Studies Association American Library Association American Psychiatric Association American Medical Association National Ceramic Educators Association Association of Women in Science American Society of Civil Engineers 222 Civic Organizations American Red Cross Lansing Area League of Women Voters Organize and support 4-H Clubs Lansing Urban League Rotary Lions Club Boy Scouts Girl Scouts Capital Area United Way Michigan Heart Association Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Greater Lansing Kiwanis Club of Okemos Arthritis Foundation Michigan Lupus Foundation American Diabetes Association Community Betterment Community fund raising activities for arts-related purposes Supporting local hunger-related organizations Regular service activities for the elderly of the community Serve as a Commissioner on the East Lansing Planning Housing and Community Development Commissions Lansing Recyclers County Economic Development Commission Neighborhood Association member Downtown Development Authority Church Involvement* Member of church Board of Directors Consulting with local church on fund-raising campaign Active Lay Leader in local church Tutoring program for elementary age students through local church Sunday school teacher Elder *Not included in original listing, but appeared repeatedly in individual responses 223 Other Jury duty Meals on Wheels Civilian auxiliary member for Lansing Fire Department MSU Federal Credit Union Board Green Peace Sierra Club Involvement in political party and party activities Assistance to visiting foreign professors Volunteer - Radio Talking Book Horseback Riding for Handicappers program WKAR-TV Auction volunteer Clowning workshop for youth group Docent of zoo Softball coach at Okemos Athletic Club Soccer coaching and referee Special Olympics Service Activities Involving Students Supervise interns with local and state government Physician accompanied by students on rounds, etc. Clinical training programs as a part of the regular educational program of the College of Osteopathic Medicine Direct activities of MBA candidates Faculty advisor to Pakistan Students Association Advise an honorary student organization Adviser to a student publication Internship and practicum supervision Placing interns with companies in German speaking countries Helping international students with personal needs Co-op education advisory committee member Internship design and supervision for juniors and seniors in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Appendix I SUMMARY OF UNSOLICITED COMMENTS ABOUT UNIVERSITY PRACTICES REGARDING PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SERVICE "Involvement in public service, even to the extent of sponsoring student activities on a one-by-one basis, is explicitly considered evidence of 'poor professional judgment' on the part of my department's chair, past chair and advisory committee members. Faculty who can arrange lucrative contracting/consulting agreements are admired as good entrepreneurs; public service as part of one's professional identity, however, hurts rather than helps one's departmental evaluations." "Our department will only allocate a maximum of 15% to the category of 'public service' in their criteria for annual salary and merit raises! I consider this to be far too low for the work I do (and think MSU should be doing)." "In my department service counts 20%, so they say. It really counts about zero. The 'land grant mission' is a joke. No one ever gets tenure for fulfilling it. Predominant orientation is generating massive quantities of vapid articles for research journals. I was told to do less service in my annual review letter. This forces me to cut public service stuff and conceal my consulting. Change the reward structure!" "My college and department are not interested in my being involved with public or community service as a part of my job (my academic workload). If I do public service (and I do) it has to be on my own time, which I think is wrong!" "I am very discouraged by the lack of support given by the University for service-related activities!" "Service is fine for some departments— and of course MSU couldn't justify its existence without 'land-grantism.' But, in academic fields, service ought not to be a way of rewarding weak departments and/or professors. When I hear service, I first think: someone who can't do decent research and/or teaching. I'm not wrong to think this, sometimes." 224 225 11All public and community service activities are not honored in the College of Education. You do not obtain promotions and salary increases for this type of activity." "I am manager for a large community study conducted annually. . .The project has been inadequately resourced and I have given one-quarter to one-half (with no compensation) to the success of the activity. At the end of this term I am leaving the position because the activity is not adequately valued by my college. Additional RA funding is necessary and secretarial support on an occasional basis. I still feel the service is important at the community level and regret that the service mission of our university is not better delivered." "You must provide reward in form of promotion, tenure and raises, recognition, etc. This activity now comes out of your own hide and has negative impact on above areas." "You fail to point up how chair, dean & provost discourage community-related activities unless they generate money/papers." "University support (more importantly, college support) for public service is a joke. If our dean didn't invent it, its not worthwhile. I wish I worked in an institution which does what our president says MSU does. There is no support for land-grant philosophy in my college." "Some service activities often get more weight than others. For example, I believe that in my department 'credit' or recognition is not given for work with women's studies and black studies related activities as it is for work in traditional, established professional sub-fields and organizations. So some service activities 'count' more than others depending on the biases dictated by the existing social norms." "I serve as a member of a local park commission. This is my last year I intend to work on the commission because it is looked upon by my esteemed colleagues as not representing a significant activity. Also, I serve as chair of a national committee within my professional organization. I am resigning this position because of the lack of support I receive and the low value placed on this activity by my department." 226 "As you might imagine, this guestionnaire is representative of what is wrong with the university's view of community service. My anger is really based on frustration, for if a major university is insensitive to the problem, then who will? Our responsibility is to lead and serve as models and not to reflect the status quo.11 "There is a crying need for the University to make clear to departments and colleges that involvement in public and community service activities are indeed legitimate professionally-related activities!— and even that they should receive consideration in tenure, promotion and salary decisions. As it is now, my department and my college do not consider nor recognize nor support involvement in public and community service activities." "I will not continue to maintain my current level of service due to increased University workload and the University's failure to recognize my contributions in the community on its behalf. And although my work with the University has been evaluated as outstanding, compensation FAILS to be reflective." "I work regularly with the Michigan Department of Education, etc., etc., yet I receive 'low-average' salary points for service. I've never been given load credit. None of my service is recognized or supported by my college or the University." "Service activities are given far too little credit in most departments, while excessive emphasis is put on research and publication. This skewed system is so deeply entrenched and the departments so highly autonomous that it will be very difficult to change the system and introduce greater equity without strong guidelines from the provost and central administration. This redirection should be part of 'R-cubed' if MSU intends to truly fulfill its mission as a land-grant university in which public/community service legitimately should play a key, not subsidiary, role. The present reward system forces faculty (and hence MSU as an institution) to try to be an imitation of the University of Michigan." "University (all college) committee work sometimes [takes] hundreds of hours of study and work, plus preparation of reports. (No recognition, other than my colleagues' verbal comments— but no specific pay raises for same.)" 227 "In the past members of the ATL Department have been told that both community service activities, such as working with teachers in public schools, and the 'Writing Across The Curriculum Project' on campus are reserved for members of the English Department." "Departmental and college positions are at odds on matters of public service and the departmental position has changed over the years under negative college pressure." "My perception of how MSU individual professional [people] perceive this: service-related efforts are not 'academic,' i.e., of substantive value, both for advancement and/or professional growth. Indeed, they may be a 'cop-out' to doing real 'professional' stuff." "The current reward system in the MSU Libraries not only never rewards such service, but community service is considered irrelevant and unimportant." "Be aware that such [service] activities, no matter how time-consuming they may be, are, like teaching in this University, of no value whatsoever to a professor at promotion time. The University pays lip service to 'teaching' and 'service,' but that is all." "I might undertake different types of service if they affected my promotion. As it is, I privately participate for personal satisfaction— environmental and social issues. Being permanently untenured gives me this jobrelated attitude." "Performing this public service (i.e. working in the hospital) accounts for 60-70% of my time. Although that time commitment is demanded by my Chair and Dean it is not rewarded as readily as is research or teaching." "[Service] has its own rewards, but none which are visible on this campus. Its pretty clear that the leadership of my college (Arts and Letters) encourages grantsmanship and publication, and allows teaching and service to fight it out for a very poor third place on the priority list." "There is a great disparity in encouragement of, and reward for, service across this University. However, when annual peer review and promotion/tenure time comes around, service is given equal weight. We should decide, as a University, whether service is to be important in each college and department and, if so, support faculty who engage in it." BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Aggarwal, Raj. "Faculty Members as Consultants: A Policy Perspective,11 Journal of the College and University Personnel Association. 32:2, Summer, 1981, pp. 17-20. Allard, Sandra. "A Summary of Institutional Policies Affecting Outside and Offload Employment for Faculty at Maryland Public Higher Education Institutions." Annapolis, Maryland: Maryland State Board for Higher Education, August, 1982. (ED 221 127) Allen, Herman R. Open Door to Learning: The Land-Grant System Enters Its Second Century. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1963. Anderson, G. Lester. Land-Grant Universities and Their Continuing Challenge. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1976. Araghi, Manijeh A.K. "The Relationship Between University Faculty Satisfaction, Role Conflict, Task Clarity and Productivity," Dissertation Abstracts International. 42:4, October, 1981, p. 1502-A. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Educational Technology: Definition and Glossary of Terms. Washington, D.C.: AECT, 1977. Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods. Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973. Belmont, Bass, William M. "Service as Part of the Job," National Forumf 67:1, Winter, 1987, pp. 11-14. Bess, James L. "New Life for Faculty and Their Institutions," Journal of Higher Education. 46:1, May/June, 1975, pp. 313-325. Blackburn, Robert T. "The Meaning of Work in Academia," in Doi, James I. (ed.), Assessing Faculty Effortf New Directions for Institutional Research, 1:2, Summer, 1984, pp. 75-99. 228 229 Blai, Boris, Jr. "Faculty-Ranked Importance in the 1970's of Pay-Promotion Criteria." (ED 222 143) Bok, Derek. Beyond the Ivorv Tower. Harvard University Press, 1982. Cambridge, Mass.: Borg, Walter R. and Gall, Meredith D. Educational Research: An Introduction (Fourth Edition). New York: Longman, Inc., 1983. Bowen, Howard R. and Schuster, Jack H. American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Bowen, Howard R. Investment in Learning; The Individual and Social Value of American Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977. Boyer, Carol M. and Lewis, Darrell R. "Maintaining Faculty Vitality Through Outside Professional Consulting," in Clark, Shirley M. and Lewis, Darrell R. (eds.), Faculty Vitality and Institutional Productivity. New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press, 1985. Boyer, Carol M. and Lewis, Darrell R. "Faculty Consulting: Responsibility or Promiscuity?," Journal of Higher Education. 55:5, September/October 1984, pp. 637659. Boyer, Ernest L. and Hechinger, Fred M. Higher Learning in the Nation's Service. Washington, D.C.: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1981. Brubaker, John S. and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education in Transition. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. Burnett, Collins W. and Martin, Leslie L. "Consulting in Higher Education," College and University. 56:3, Spring, 1981, pp. 195-206. Campus Compact. "Campus Compact's Definition of Public Service." Providence, Rhode Island: Campus Compact, undated. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. and the Performance of Higher Education. McGraw-Hill, 1973. The Purposes New York: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. the City. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. The Campus and 230 Centra, John A. Determining Faculty Effectiveness. Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980. San Clark, Burton W. The Academic Life: Small Worlds. Different Worlds. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1987. Corson, John J. "Public Service and Higher Education: Compatability or Conflict?" in Dobbins, Charles G. and Lee, Calbin B.T. (eds.), Whose Goals for American Higher Education? Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968. Crosson, Patricia H. Public Service in Higher Education: Practices and Priorities. Washington, D.C.: ASHE-ERIC, 1983. Connolly, John J. "A Study of Faculty Involvement in Community Service Programs." Dissertation Abstracts International. 33:6, December, 1972, p. 2730-A. Davis, Marylee. A Legislative View of the Public Service Function of State-Supported Institutions. Ph.D . Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974. DiBiaggio, John A. "The State of the University: A Changing University Looks Toward 1988 and 2001." Speech presented at Michigan State University, February 8, 1988. Dillon, Kristine E. and Bane, Karen L. "Consulting and Conflict of Interest," Educational Record. 61:2, Spring, 1980, pp. 52-72. Dowling, Noreen. "Motivation and the Role of Faculty in Public Service in the University of California." Paper presented at the International Meeting of Urban Universities of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, September 18, 1986. (ED 276 370) Dressel, Paul L. College to University: The Hannah Years at Michigan State. 1935-1969. East Lansing: Michigan State University Publications, 1987. Dressel, Paul L. Handbook of Academic Evaluation. Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978. San Duley, John. "Service as Learning, Life-style, and Faculty Function," in Martin, Warren B. (ed.), Redefining Service. Research and Teaching. New Directions for Higher Education, 18, Summer, 1977, pp. 23-36. 231 Duryea, E.D. "The University and the State: A Historical Overview," in Altbach, Philip G. and Berdahl, Robert O. (eds.)/ Higher Education in American Society. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1981. Eddy, Edward D . , Jr. Colleges for Our Land and Time: The Land-Grant Idea in American Education. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. "Eighty-one Percent of Professors in Survey Report Outside Earnings Averaging $5,756," The Chronicle of Higher Education. 23:15, December 9, 1981, p. 15. Euster, Gerald L. and Weinbach, Robert W. "University Rewards for Faculty Community Service," Journal of Education for Social Work. 19:1, Winter, 1983, pp. 108114. Faiman, Robert N. and Oliver, Maurice E. (eds.). A Question of Partnership: Institutions of Higher Education as a Resource in the Solution of National Problems. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, 1972. Feasley, Charles E. "Faculty Workload Formulas in Competency-Based Programs," Educational Technology. 18:11, November, 1978, pp. 30-32. Florestano, Patricia S. and Hambrick, Ralph. "Rewarding Faculty Members for Profession-Related Public Service," Educational Record. 65:1, Winter, 1984, pp. 18-21. French, John R.P., Jr., Tupper, C. John and Mueller. Ernst F. Work Load of University Professors. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1965. Geiger, Louis G. Higher Education in a Maturing Democracy. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press, 1963. Gibson, Gail. "Compact Calls for Volunteers," The State News. Michigan State University, 3/30/89, pp. 3,14. Glass, Gene V. and Hopkins, Kenneth D. Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology (Second Edition). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice-Hall, 1984. Gmelch, Walter H . , Wilke, Phyllis Kay and Lovrich, Nicholas P. "Dimensions of Stress Among University Faculty: Factor-Analytic Results from a National Study," Research in Higher Education, 24:3, 1986, pp. 266-283. 232 Good, Carter V. (ed.). Dictionary of Education (Second Edition).. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959. Good, Harry G. and Teller, James D. Education (Third Edition^. London: 1969. A History of Western The McMillan Co., Green, Thomas F. "Acquisition of Purpose," in Chickering, Arthur W . , The Modern American College. Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981. San Greene, Elizabeth. "Organization to Promote Public Service by Students Formed by California Higher-Education Leaders," The Chronicle of Higher Education. 35:13, December 7, 1988, pp. A31-A32. Gross, Edward and Grambsch, Paul V. University Goals and Academic Power. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968. Gunn, Bruce. "Evaluating Faculty Performance: A Holistic Approach," Journal of the College and University Personnel Association. 33:4, Winter, 1982, pp. 23-30. Haberman, Martin and Quinn, Lois. "Assessing Faculty's Community Service," Adult Leadership. 25:5, January, 1977, pp. 140,150. Halsted, D. Kent. Statewide Planning in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. Higham, Robin. The Compleat Academic: An Informal Guide to the Ivorv Tower. New York: St. Martins Press, 1974. Hinkle, Dennis E., Wiersma, William and Jurs, Stephen G. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1979. Houston, James E . (e d .). Thesaurus of ERIC Descriptors. Eleventh Edition. Phoenix, Arizona: Oryx Press, 1987. Jacobi, Maryann and Gray, Sonia. "Survey of Community Service Activities Sponsored by UCLA Departments and Student Organizations: Preliminary Findings." Los Angeles: UCLA, unpublished report, February, 1987. Johnson, Eldon L. "Misconceptions About the Early LandGrant Colleges," Journal of Higher Education, 52:4, July/August, 1981, pp. 333-351. 233 Johnson, Eldon L. "Higher Education and National Problem Solving," in Faiman, Robert N. and Oliver, Maurice E. (eds.), A Question of Partnership: Institutions of Higher Education as a Resource in the Solution of National Problems. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, 1972. Johnson, Lynn G., Pascale, Pietro J. and Yiannaki, Harold. "Mobilizing the Faculty for Service: Attitudes Toward University Sponsored Service Programs at Five State Universities," ASHE 1984 Annual Meeting Paper, Association for the Study of Higher Education, Chicago, Illinois, March 12-14, 1984. (ED 245 597) Kalab, Kathleen A. "University Teachers in Senior Community Centers," Educational Gerontology, 12:5, September/October, 1986, pp. 441-451. Kanun, Clara. "Patterns of Response: Faculty Community Service Survey." Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Continuing Education and Extension Research Department, 1975. (ED 107 882) Kasten, Katherine Lewellan. "Tenure and Merit Pay as Rewards for Research, Teaching and Service at a Research University," Journal of Higher Education. 55:4, July/August, 1984, pp. 500-514. Kaysen, Carl. The Higher Learning, the Universities and the Public. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969. Keim, William A. "A Dynamic Definition of Service," in Holcomb, Hope M. (ed.), Reaching Out Through Community Service. New Directions for Community Colleges, 14, Summer, 1976, pp. 1-9. Kerr, Clark. The Uses of the University— With a Postscript— 1972. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. Kerr, W.J. The Spirit of the Land-Grant Institutions. Washington, D.C.: Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, 1931. Knowles, A.S. The International Encyclopedia of Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977. 234 Kohl, Joye Brown. "Incentive/Reward Systems and Faculty Orientations Toward Academic Activities at a Land-Grant University." Dissertation Abstracts International. 41:4, October, 1980, p. 1429-A. Koss, Joan Mary. "Faculty Attitudes Toward Nontraditional Institutional Goals at a Large Public University." Dissertation Abstracts International. 48:10, April, 1988, p. 2553-A. Kuhn, Madison. Michigan State: The First One Hundred Years. 1855-1955. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1955. Lederman, Douglas. "After a Nine-Month Series of PublicRelations Debacles, U. of Minnesota Officials Strive to Pick Up the Pieces," The Chronicle of Higher Education. 35:7, October 12, 1988, pp. Al,16-17. Long, Durward. "The University as Commons: A View From the Administration," in Martin, Warren B. (ed.), Redefining Servicef Research and Teaching, New Directions for Higher Education, 18, Summer, 1977, pp. 75-86. Long, Norton E. and Groskind, Nena. "Updating the LandGrant Tradition," Changef 4:4, May, 1972, pp. 6-7,69. Magarrell, Jack. "Business Professors Found Earning Highest Extra Pay," The Chronicle of Higher Education. 21:15, December 1, 1980, p. 7. Magarrell, Jack. "Extra Work Found to Add 21% to Base Salaries of Most Professors," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 21:13, November 17, 1980, pp. 1,7. Magnusen, Karl O. "Faculty, Evaluation, Performance, and Pay," Journal of Higher Education. 58:5, September/October, 1987, pp. 516-529. Marsh, Herbert W. and Dillon, Kristine E. "Academic Productivity and Faculty Supplemental Income," Journal of Higher Education. 51:5, September-October, 1980, pp. 546-555. Martin, Warren B. "Teaching, Research and Service— But the Greatest of These Is Service," in Martin, Warren B. (ed.), Redefining Service. Research and Teaching. New Directions for Higher Education, 18, Summer, 1977, pp. vii-ix. 235 Martin, Warren B. "Service Through Ideas of Value," in Martin, Warren B. (ed.)/ Redefining Service, Research and Teaching. New Directions for Higher Education, 18, Summer, 1977, pp. 1-16. Martin, Warren B. "Summary: Teaching, Research and Service— Let the Last Be First," in Martin, Warren B. (ed.), Redefining Service. Research and Teaching. New Directions for Higher Education, 18, Summer, 1977, pp. 93-99. Mawby, Russell G. "Public Service." Address at the 100th Annual Meeting of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Washington, D.C., November 10, 1987. McAllister, Ronald J. "Service, Teaching and Research: Old Elements in a New Academic Melting Pot," Journal of Higher Education. 47:4, July/August, 1976, pp. 471-480. McConnell, T.R. "Autonomy and Accountability: Some Fundamental Issues," in Altbach, Philip G. and Berdahl, Robert O. (eds.), Higher Education in American Society. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1981. Michigan State University. Print-out, Office of Academic Personnel Records: "Total Faculty and Academic Staff Distribution by College, Title, Rank and FTE." East Lansing, MSU, October 1, 1988. Michigan State University. Faculty Handbook. Lansing, MSU, February, 1988. East Michigan State University. Memorandum, Office of Planning and Budgets: "Definition of Public Service." East Lansing: MSU, February 4, 1988. Michigan State University. Mission Statement. Lansing: MSU, June 24, 1982. East Michigan State University. Recommendation for Tenure Action or Promotion. East Lansing: MSU, December, 1979. Miller, Richard I. Evaluating Faculty Performance. Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972. San Mooney, Carolyn J. "Land-Grant Institutions Take a Fresh Look at. How They Treat 125-Year-Old Mission," The Chronicle of Higher Education. 34:9, October 28, 1987, pp. Al,30-31. 236 Morrill, James Lewis. The Ongoing State University. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1960. Morrill, Paul H. and Spees, Emil R. The Academic Professon: Teaching in Higher Education. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1982. Nevins, Allan. The State Universities and Democracy. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1962. Newton, Robert R. "Performance Evaluation in Education," Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, 33:2, Summer, 1982, pp. 39-43. Nickens, John M. "A Taxonomy for Community Services," in Holcomb, Hope M. (ed.), Reaching Out Through Community Service. New Directions for Community Colleges, 14, Summer, 1976, pp. 11-18. Nie, Norman H. , et al. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Second Edition'!. New York: McGrawHill, 1975. Olswang, Steven G. and Lee, Barbara A. Faculty Freedoms and Institutional Accountability: Interactions and Conflicts. Washington, D.C.: ASHE-ERIC, 1984. Parrott, Roger L. "A Comparison of Faculty Members' Reported Professional Activities and the Workload Desires of College Presidents for Faculty Members." Dissertation Abstracts Internationalf 41:2, August, 1980, p. 559-A. Patton, Carl V. "Consulting by Faculty Members," Academe. 66:4, May, 1980, pp. 181-185. Patton, Carl V. and Marver, James D. "Paid Consulting by American Academics," Educational Record. 60:2, Spring, 1979, pp. 175-184. Perkins, James A. "The Dynamics of University Growth," in Mayhew, Lewis B. (ed.). Higher Education in the Revolutionary Decades. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1967. Potter, V.R., et al. "Purpose and Function of the University," Science. 167, March 20, 1970, pp. 1590-1593. Quigley, Martin S. "The Service Function of Higher Education Institutions: A New York Case Study." In Gove, Samuel K. and Stauffer, Thomas M. (eds.), Policy Controversies in Higher Education. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986. 237 Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University; A History. New York: Vintage Books, 1962. Runyon, Richard P. and Haber, Audrey. Fundamentals of Behavioral Statistics (Sixth Edition^. New York: Random House, 1988. Sanford, Nevitt. The American College. Wiley and Sons, 1962. New York: John Scheaffer, Richard L . , Mendenhall, William, and Ott, Lyman. Elementary Survey Sampling (Third Edition). Boston: Duxbury Press, 1986. Seldin, Peter. San Francisco: Changing Practices in Faculty Evaluation. Jossey-Bass, 1984. Seldin, Peter. "Faculty Evaluation: Surveying Policy and Practices," Change, 16:3, April, 1984, pp. 28-33. Seldin, Peter. Successful Faculty Evaluation Programs. Crugers, New York: Coventry Press, 1980. Shuib, Rashidah. The Perceptions and Belief Patterns of Faculty Members in the College of Education Toward Community Service. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1983. Shulman, Carol Herrnstadt. Old Expectations. New Realities: The Academic Profession Revisited. Washington, D.C.: ASHE-ERIC, 1979. Sills, James H. "The Public Service Function at the University of Delaware: A Case Study." Dissertation Abstracts International. 43:2, August, 1982, p. 549-A. Slaughter, Sheila. "From Serving Students to Serving the Economy: Changing Expectations of Faculty Role Performance," Higher Education. 14:1, February, 1985, pp. 41-56. Smith, Donald K. "Faculty Vitality and the Management of University Personnel Policies." In Kirschling, Wayne R. (ed.), Evaluating Faculty Performance and Vitality. New Directions for Institutional Research, 20, 1978, pp. 116. Smith, Kurt B. "A Descriptive Analysis of Certain Mission, Program and Organizational Variables With Respect to the Academic Public Service Function of Selected State Colleges and Universities." Dissertation Abstracts International. 43:3, Septebmer, 1982, p. 695-A. 238 Startup, Richard. The University Teacher and His World. Farnborough, Hampshire, England: Saxon House, 1979. Stead, Ronald S. An Analysis of the University Goal Perceptions and Preferences of Students. Faculty. Administrators and Trustees at Michigan State University. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Stecklein, John E. "Approaches to Measuring Workload Over the Past Two Decades." In Doi, James I . (ed.), Assessing Faculty Effort, New Directions for Institutional Research, 1:2, Summer, 1974, pp. 1-16. Stecklein, John E. "Methods of Analyzing, Expressing and Reporting Faculty Load Data," in Bunnell, Kevin (ed.), Faculty Work Load. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960. Steffens, Lincoln. "Sending a State to College," in Stone, James C. and DeNevi, Donald P. (eds.), Portraits of the American University, 1890-1910. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971. Stroup, Kala M. "Faculty Evaluation," in Fuller, Jon W. (ed.), Issues in Faculty Personnel Policies. New Directions for Higher Education, 41, Spring, 1983, pp. 47-62. Teague, Gerald V. "Faculty Consulting: Do Universities Have 'Control'?," Research in Higher Education. 17:2, 1982, pp. 179-186. "Text of Cheney's 'Report to the President, the Congress, and the American People' on the Humanities in America," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 35:4, September 21, 1988, pp. A17-23. "The Morrill Act (1862)," in Crane, Theodore R. (ed.), The Colleges and the Public. 1787-1862. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963. "The Morrill Act, 1862," in Hofstadter, Richard and Smith, Wilson (eds.), American Higher Education: A Documentary History. Volume II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Tuckman, Howard P. Publication. Teaching and the Academic Reward Structure. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co., 1976. 239 Veysey, Laurence R. The Emergence of the American University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Volpe, E. Peter. "Teaching, Research, and Service: Union or Coexistence?" In Dobbins, Charles G. and Lee, Calvin B.T. (eds.), Whose Goals for American Higher Education? Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968. Votruba, James C. "Faculty Rewards for University Outreach: An Integrative Approach," Journal of Higher Education, 49:6, November/December, 1978, pp. 639-648. Watkins, Beverly T. "Colleges Urged to Weigh Professors' Outside Activities During Evaluations for Salary Increase and Tenure," The Chronicle of Higher Education. 31:12, November 20, 1985, pp. 23-24. Watkins, Beverly T. "Outside Earnings Found to Add 25% to Income of Three in Four Faculty Members," The Chronicle of Higher Education. 26:3, March 16, 1983, pp. 21,24. Watkins, Beverly T. "Outside Incomeon University Time: a Conflict for Professors?," The Chronicle of' Higher Educationf 15:23, February 21, 1978, pp. 1,13. Wells, Margie Elaine. "The Effects of Community Service As Perceived by Selected Faculty at the University of Cincinnati." Dissertation Abstracts International. 40:4, October, 1979, p. 1827-A. Whitmer, John M . , Jr. "Conceptualization and Formulization of an Optimizing-Resource Allocation Model of a Public Service Delivery Function in Higher Education." Dissertation Abstracts International. 40:7, January, 1980, p. 3355-B. Wildavsky, Aaron. "The Debate Over Faculty Consulting," Change, 10:6, June/July, 1978, pp. 13-14. Wilson, Logan. American Academics Then and Now. York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Wilson, Logan. The Academic Man. University Press, 1942. New York: New Oxford 240 Wilson, O. Meredith. "Private Systems of Higher Education," in Perkins, James A. and Israel, Barbara B. (eds.), Higher Education: From Autonomy to Systems. New York: International Council for Educational Development, 1972. Wilson, Woodrow. "Princeton in the Nation's Service," in Hofstedter, Richard and Smith, Wilson, (eds.) American Higher Education: A Documentary History. Volume II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.